Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: Caveman on January 22, 2011, 06:06:20 am
-
So, it looks like this is will be a big online event with lots of debating about what is the best diet for us (focusing on animal foods vs. no animal foods). Daniel Vitalis and David Wolfe will be in there..
As of right now you can still sign up for free..
I doubt there will be too much for me to learn, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
http://www.renegadehealth.com/ghd/event5.html (http://www.renegadehealth.com/ghd/event5.html)
-
watap caveman :D
registered :D
thanks.
-
They have sally fallon as one of the experts but I think it would be a much better debate if they had someone like chris masterjohn who actually knows the science.
-
David Wolfe is a coo-coo charlatan
-
Anyone listen to today's broadcast?
Whenever I listened to Dr. Cousens's single interview, sometimes it felt like a bloody religious sermon rather than a scientific debate. He also seems adept at pulling correlations from every source imaginable.
Mercola during his private interview mostly said what I had already known and thankfully he isn't so presumptuous.
The dual interview was so strange. They both had such differing opinions yet they seemed to be agreeing on everything. I wish hoping for more action.
-
Anyone listen to today's broadcast?
I listened to it... most of it anyway, right now Gabe Cousins is trying to say that eating animals is not spiritual, and if you are not succeeding as a vegan then you are not doing it right. He also takes protein supplement. He keeps trying to brag.
Mercola speaks a lot of truth but none of it was new to me. Eat as local as possible, get EFAs, buy my product. He did bring forth the idea of eating raw animal foods, but seemed reluctant. He said he hardly cooks his meat, but um often doesn't. He is afraid of being called coo-coo, but I don't blame him. We all can't be me 8) LOL
Don't waste the three hours
I plan on catching the Daniel Vitalis segment, cuz he sooo dreamy. l) haha!
But seriously, I am probably going to his segment because he is the only "health authority" I do not loath.
-
Cousins just said(reluctantly) he cares more about spirituality than health. LOL
He is pulling the longer life span BS.
Earlier he also said that your baby is going to have lower SAT scores if your wife eats fish once a month while pregnant.
-
I want to listen because it's entertaining and I may learn something.
I hoping for epic lols tomorrow.
Sally Fallon vs. Dr. T Colin Campbell
The fail will surely be strong with this one. XD
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa300/cxk25821/File0004205.jpg)
-
Cousins just said(reluctantly) he cares more about spirituality than health. LOL
The interview is over. Are you listening to it just now?
-
Gabe Cousins is trying to say that eating animals is not spiritual, and if you are not succeeding as a vegan then you are not doing it right. He also takes protein supplement. He keeps trying to brag.
So the vegan rhetoric continues. >D
-
Anyone interested needs to listen within the next 24 hours, when it will be taken down.
-
Cousins just said(reluctantly) he cares more about spirituality than health.
Interesting.If that's the case he should become a monk and stop selling health books >D
-
Interesting.If that's the case he should become a monk and stop selling health books >D
He had sort of a vague, veiled way of assuming moral superiority like some religious people do.
On one hand he says that his way is not morally superior yet says eating plants is more spiritual.
-
http://www.renegadehealth.com/ghd/blog/videopopup/night1.html
Free for 24 hours I think.
SF v TCC ..... O my agod LOL
T.Colin Campbell is obviously not healthy, I saw him in a video a while back and NO THANKS!
Sally Fallon is ok, but the whole freezing your butter and meat is coo coo. Traditional my ass.
GC update... Rough quote"A thousand years ago milk was healthy, now things have changed. What was healthy in 1900, may not be healthy now" He also blamed Chernobyl for contaminating all of the grass, everywhere, which makes cows bad for eating. l)
-
"I believe people should have a right to have raw milk, even if its going to KILLEM" GC
-
A thousand years ago milk was healthy, now things have changed. What was healthy in 1900, may not be healthy now" He also blamed Chernobyl for contaminating all of the grass, everywhere, which makes cows bad for eating.
My face when he said that
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa300/cxk25821/facepalm.jpg)
-
Now I am just listening and imagining how I would destroy a veg who made these claims.
He is failing epically. Once I thought he was a credible source of info, I must have been protein deficient. :D
Maybe if I was a SAD eater trying to cure diabetes or cancer, I may have gone to his clinic but as for life long dietary recommendations.... No not at all
-
He did bring forth the idea of eating raw animal foods, but seemed reluctant. He said he hardly cooks his meat, but um often doesn't. He is afraid of being called coo-coo, but I don't blame him. We all can't be me 8) LOL
I understand that he wouldn't. I mean most people are repulsed by the idea of raw animal foods. He wants to help people become healthier in a way that appeals to the common man. Not many people will be attracted to our diet. It is not ideal, but it is MUCH better than how someone would fare on the SAD. I respect him very much. If he went gung-ho about promoting raw meats, people will start to think he is nuts, and many people won't take many of his other good advice. I frequent his site, and there is always great information.
-
I understand that he wouldn't. I mean most people are repulsed by the idea of raw animal foods. He wants to help people become healthier in a way that appeals to the common man. Not many people will be attracted to our diet. It is not ideal, but it is MUCH better than how someone would fare on the SAD. I respect him very much. If he went gung-ho about promoting raw meats, people will start to think he is nuts, and many people won't take many of his other good advice. I frequent his site, and there is always great information.
Agreed, I see nothing wrong with it. I just like to point out absurdities.
I am definitely going to listen to the rest of these dialogs. This one was not much of a debate, I wonder if anyone is going to go nuts...
-
im waiting for daniel vitalis
-
im waiting for daniel vitalis
Me too. He seems to be the most in tune to his nature and I believe his teachings, although sometimes obvious, are the most important to be gathered from any of these people.
-
He and David Wolfe are going to be debating... oh ma lawd LOL
-
6. There are no meat-eating healing centers that I know of.
Dr. Mercola confirmed that he didn’t know of any place where people go to heal that has meat on the menu.
I do not know of a place either.
This, in itself, is very good evidence that for healing illness removing these types of foods from your diet may be effective.
Surprising that this great health debate host does not know of any Meat Eating Healing Center. All he knows are vegan, vegetarian healing centers. Perhaps he hasn’t heard that Max Gerson heals people with raw livers. Perhaps he hasn’t heard about how I cure friends and family with raw meat, raw fat, raw oysters, raw clams, raw fish, raw liver, raw eggs. Well, Mr. Host, I’m here to introduce you to myself and my friend who uses meat eating in healing.
http://www.myhealthblog.org/2011/02/08/meat-eating-healing-center-in-the-philippines-vander-gaditano/
-
the debate was fairly uneventful. In a way Mercola acted way too respectful, and Cousens was a good match as he actually has way more credibility and understanding of physiology than most other self claimed gurus. Of course he's fairly blind that very few people seem to successfully live doing what he says in comparison to Mercola. In a weird way Cousens played good politics and basically agree with much of what mercola said...and probably angered alot of vegans as always suggesting his 'low carb' diet of supplements and that most vegan diets can be problematic. He throught he would have gotten Mercola to agree that this 'low carb' diet was best for most diseases which Mercola actually explained he doesn't recommend it for all people due 'metabolic typing'.
if you listened to the very end of the three hours...Cousens actually did let some shit loose which I had heard in the past from others that had attend his talks. He basically believes (or at least says) that 100 years ago even (never-mind cave era) that meats and dairy were much healthier..and have since been destroyed by radiation from Chernobyl and other things. You hear the 'eat lower on the food chain' BS alot from vegans..but he claims to have actually tested materials for such compounds and such. The thing that makes this super suspicious is he then tried to ignore most of the other problems that are generally seen to have increased cancer risk among other advanced disease. In adition he's crazy about finding people in the past that wee on a plant based diet, so it seems more like excuses to demonize animal foods which he already sees as infeior, and not superior food that has been contaminated.
I dunno. my prediction is this will be the only potentially legitimate criticism lobbed at paleo type nutrition in the entire rest of the debates.
He also said he could only do 70 push-ups when he was a footbal captain, and now did 600+ recently. Obviously he must not be talking about in a row...or if he is..pass the spirulinia and Carintine supplements please. Turns out the record for push ups in a row non-stop was 10,507. wtf!!???
the most outrageous thing that was said was that many American Indians were on a 100%! plant based diet or only included a little animal food. um ok
Mercola gained alot of my respect for just being cool and not really making very many set statements about what was healthy..only that he believed everyone needed some to alot of animal foods for optimal health, and that he believed eating most of your diet raw including all his eggs and much of his meat. Pretty amazing for the person that runs the worlds largest health portal.
-
Thanks KD,btw is AV supposed to participate on this deal?
-
Says surprise guests, but I am guessing not. They added Mark Sisson vs. Fred Pateneude last minute tho.
Tonight is Sally Fallon and T. Colin Campbell. no matter what one thinks of SF or WAPF..this should be huge (for vegans anyway) and should provide some interesting discussion on traditional peoples at least I imagine.
edit
they swtiched it to Dr. Jonny Bowden and Dr. Joel Fuhrman. Bowden seems interesting - likes pemmican, and Furhman is another one of these vegans that actually is somewhat reasonable. Probably will irritate the raw crowd all around.
-
Dang, they switched the schedule. I haven't heard of these two people, but I'm curious about what they have to say.
-
Vonderplanitz does not seem to be the debate type. He seems more like the listen or I will bite your head off type.
-
Johnny Bowden knows his stuff.
I like how he points out how meat eater vs non meat eater data doesn't differentiate between meat eaters who eat pastured meat vs processed/junk food meat. People need to understand this. I doubt the other side would acknowledge this.
-
I'm hearing some very good points from this guy, even though it's nothing new to me. I'm glad these points about "cleansing" diets are being put out there and how they are not diets to live and thrive off of.
-
oh man this is awful.
-
oh man this is awful.
Lol, he's currently saying almost everything we disagree with.
-
I'm hearing some very good points from this guy, even though it's nothing new to me. I'm glad these points about "cleansing" diets are being put out there and how they are not diets to live and thrive off of.
Yeah,Vitalis talks about that a lot though which is good.
-
Vonderplanitz does not seem to be the debate type. He seems more like the listen or I will bite your head off type.
And then let it age for a while so he can eat it.
-
Vonderplanitz does not seem to be the debate type. He seems more like the listen or I will bite your head off type.
ROFL
-
Cousins just said(reluctantly) he cares more about spirituality than health. LOL
He is pulling the longer life span BS.
I struggled with this for awhile (spirituality VS meat) however the meat camp is winning because there is no consistence in whether it's true. The Dalai LLama had to return to eating meat on the advice of his medical people. A vegan friend had to go on iron supplements etc due to life threatening problems.
One source that I trust said that to get to the highest levels you need to be vegan, but that level is not something that most people are ready for.
In the meantime a Chinese doc that I went to out of curiosity told me that liver issues are common with vegans. Because of Vit B and iron.
Earlier he also said that your baby is going to have lower SAT scores if your wife eats fish once a month while pregnant.
hmmmm did he mention the source of that info?
-
hmmmm did he mention the source of that info?
No. He does not have to, he is a vegan. heh
He admitted to taking protein supplements, he defeated himself.
-
One source that I trust said that to get to the highest levels you need to be vegan, but that level is not something that most people are ready for.
Highest levels of what?
-
Highest levels of what?
Consciousness.
-
Consciousness.
I suspected so... guess I am not ready >D
-
Donna Gates and Rob Young
Anyone interested?
-
Huh?
Eating more alkaline food to produce more stomach acid?
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa300/cxk25821/images.jpg)
Is there any truth to this at ALL?
-
"fruitarian blood looks like rotten bananas"
hehe
"fructose is a neurotoxin"
ok
"the fact that we age is the evidence that we can not over alkalize."
????
I have to admit, I have always found this guy fascinating with his electron powered humans and so forth. he's sort of like a demented dr. Seuss.
"do you want to kill you children?"
"no sane scientific reason for eating animal protein"
Obviously people do not 'NEED' animal 'protein' for athletic pursuits. Health/regeneration is debatable but fairly likely and this is visible without need to employ the micro, even though much of this stuff is interesting. Take away sugars from the things of the earth that have actually ever existed as food as a source of calories.and pretty much what you have is animal 'protein' and fat...as well as a very narrow spectrum of edible non rancid seasonal plant fats and non sugar fruits with a few wild herbs and very little ocean plants or usable grasses or superfoods and salts. Never-mind even some sugars as well as diets rich in animal foods being free virtually all the diseases being spoken about prior to agriculture and also even largely in indigenous cultures...not saying that salts or ocean plants are bad....
It was interesting to finally see that he does not necessarily recommend a 300 calorie a day diet rich in electrons or whatever from being both low carb, no 'sugar' and no animal fat or protein. apparently the ideal diet of humans and even strength trainers all over the globe is a variety of green foods plenty of avocodo and virtually nothing else that was ever eaten as those things clearly cause people to be mortal. He did say athletes would still eat upwards of 4000 calories a day, largely coming from the avocado.
Is there any truth to this at ALL?
basically everyone is 100% correct.
-
While hiking, I met a man operating a goat/llama farm in the mountains.
He told me that he had no acidity in his body.
This was due to goat milk kefir and all of the oxygen from the trees surrounding his house.
l)
Personally I think people buy it due to the common emotional response to the word "acid", just like with "fat".
Propaganda requires no proof when dealing with non critical thinkers.
-
I'm surprised by a couple of things:
1. Robert Young is still alive
2. He hasn't killed or seriously harmed anyone with his recommendations.
5 grams of protein? REALLY?
-
Listening to Young now...
I don't agree with any of this at all.
Would have been awesome to see Vonderplanitz debate him, they are polar opposite.
-
OH LOL, David Wolfe is a creationist? XD
I doubt he would understand human's natural diet, if this is the case.
"Cook raw meat to dramatically lower karma so you don't get blasted with the karma from the animal."
WTF? I don't understand some of these diet gurus with their new age spirituality BS.
-
DW
notice how virtually all of his criticisms (which were actually quite few in comparison to some other folks) about animal eating revolved around karma and spiritual concerns with some 'environmental' stuff. Often he labeled animal foods as 'superfoods' which were almost 'too concentrated' and 'too sustaining'. he basically (indirectly) praised marrow calling it an alkaline fat. To me much of what he said as usual was totally interesting and his critiques and acknowledgments (like Cousens) in many ways seem the most possible as having some validity to heavy contemporary meat consumption..particularly in comparison to the utterly simplistic criticisms and pointing at very limited isolated situations and factors of other people in 'health' communities.. In this more plausible regard, he mentions things like bone marrow containing more modern toxins or eating meat that we don't hunt or participate in having some effect on our spiritual well being, as well as of course parasites and such things if eating raw. He did say all the raw meat people he knew way back were 'always sick'. He didn't say they were his housemates though.
To me some of these criticisms are certainly within the range of possibility. They don't make me want to construct some completely artificial way of life, but i'm open to hearing their opinions and suggestions for something that perhaps could be more ideal than blind re-enactment. Many of the other things he suggested regarding longevity and/or cleansing I also see as possibilities albeit possibly unessential for some or some approaches.
Most importantly Wolfe basically praised massive amounts of products that either directly or indirectly came from animals...as long as they didn't come from killing animals directly...which in a way is odd as obviously many involved enslaving animals, creating problems for ecosystems or creating totally artificial processing plants or farms that destroy wild habitats as Daniel then spoke about.
DV
Daniel was basically a perfect counterpoint to probably even the other 'meat eaters' in the talks as expected in discussing how 'unknown' so many diets (including raw foodism of any kind) in fact are. I loved how he talked about how disingenuous it was for 'health leaders' to basically spring spiritual or unrealistic trips as having known health consequences, when they should really be saying 'hey, would you like to come on an experiment with me? i'm trying something out that has never been done before"
hehe
unfortunately not too much or nothing about raw meat eating, and he actually discussed how homo erectus (pre sapien of course) being the one to master fire and apply it to food.
lots of the other breakdowns were great and well articulated in such eyeopening fashion probably for people that have never actually thought about traditional eating or outside boxes filled with raw-vegan dogmas... but probably not much for most folks here.
I enjoyed both these talks. DW might be a bit blubbery as he suggests which in a way is fairly impressive if he actually eats how he says he eats (which is not likely and contrary to most reports) and even just in general as a raw vegetarian...but I think he does have alot to offer...particularly like Fuhrman..at least for constructing higher quality vegetarian diets.
OH LOL, David Wolfe is a creationist? XD
From what i've heard in the past, Wolfe isn't a creationist, although he did reference creationist book. As far as I know he was a proponent of Huge de Vries mutation theory..which does not suggest the world is at all recent, but that there are just massive gaps in the fossil record, that do suggest some species do not 'evolve' over time but change massively in a relatively short periods. I resonate with that more myself.
-
Vegan argument... signs of life, none.
DV referred to driver's licenses as being the same as cow ear tags. YES ;D
Living in Az, I totally agree with this.
If you do not have an ID you can be kidnapped or killed by the blue man group if encountered.
Overpopulation... that might just deserve it's own thread,
What do you think?
-
which does not suggest the world is at all recent, but that there are just massive gaps in the fossil record, that do suggest some species do not 'evolve' over time but change massively in a relatively short periods. I resonate with that more myself.
This is still part of evolution. It's called punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualism. High environmental stress causes accelerated natural selection. If he believes evolution is false, then he could not possibly have this point of view.
-
This is still part of evolution. It's called punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualism. High environmental stress causes accelerated natural selection. If he believes evolution is false, then he could not possibly have this point of view.
I don't think I agree. If I was to say I don't believe in relativity it would be assumed I would be speaking of Einstein's Theory of Relatively in terms of being not quite sure this encapsulates reality very well or better than any other proposed theory (such as Quantum Mechanics etc..). It doesn't mean that in some cases things may or may not be relative or the theories of Relativity might describe a certain kind of observable or theoretical truth.
If I say I don't believe in evolution, this generally means Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection which is a theory of how our species as well as other might have shifted and changed over time. In that respect its completely different than de Vries theory and others' in terms of which reasons things shift and change and how. Within disagreeing with this theory (evolution) there is plenty room to agree that the world is billions of years old and that certain species have changed over time and didn't appear in their exact state etc...
Most importantly as brought up by DV, even within evolution there are no records that prove we evolved at all from chimps, and if anything we share a common ancestor of which chimps evolved or devolved/mutated from that in ways are closer to us than to chimps. I posted a documentary?/reenactment awhile back about all the suspected beginning humanoids, and even within that scientific community it was believed that multiple different kinds of humanoids basically just appeared at different times eating a variety of different kinds of foods..even things like tall grasses and bamboo like stuff to mostly meat..far before sapeins. Various ones on the spectrum simply did not make it.
In a way you could say the ones that adapted to learning how to pick out bone marrow and subsequently hunt were thus the 'fittest' and were able to then evolve further, but what you see prior to that is the emergence of such a species to begin with that had those tendencies and either survived or failed due to a variety of factors. It really doesn't make sense otherwise (to me anyway).
If one is to say: I believe in evolution, then in a way its fairly human centered and would place any other apes as in the process as evolving towards us. I grew up watching alot of sci-fi and cartoons and generally hopeful of that happening, but I think it is tremendously unlikely. What I see quite clearly is that Evolution as a theory is very much tied to various economic and sociological theories of the time (from eugenics to modern capital theories etc..), in terms of categorizing and basically suppressing things that are inherently chaotic that can actually seem quite logical if they've already been pressed into a little box.
Despite some people having radical 'creationist' theories or agendas, it doesn't mean that information within their books/theories etc...is completely false and silly, it just means they have some agenda that they support with equally valid criticisms to the grandfathered and equally religious 'theories'.
-
KD the thing it sounds to me like you're saying you don't 'believe' in is not 'The Theory of Evolution' at all... It sounds like the thing you are saying you find more probable than what you think is 'The Theory of Evolution' is indeed 'The Theory of Evolution'...
That was hard to write..
-
KD the thing you're describing to justify you not 'believing' in evolution is not 'The Theory of Evolution'... It sounds to me like the thing which you're saying sounds more right to you is indeed 'The Theory of Evolution'...
I don't speak your Jackie Chan language miles.
I (as well as the person in question to my knowledge) don't believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, Evolution for short. I believe there are a variety of theories developed around the same time and since that attempt to describe the development of species in the last few million as well as billions of years that isn't completely in line with species competing for and succeeding and changing based on evolutionary theories. One can say that mutation is a type of evolutionary theory and that it does not even deny selection per se, but I don't ascribe to that theory entirely either, so i'd have to disagree that my belief has to do much with Darwin's theories or any one theory of evolution that exists to my knowledge. Although they seem useful in describing things, I personally feel that makes them more counterproductive and even dangerous than people who want to believe god created elephants to kill mice or something.
-
even within evolution there are no records that prove we evolved at all from chimps
? ? ? the theory of Evolution' doesn't say we evolved from chimpanzees..
and if anything we share a common ancestor of which chimps evolved or devolved/mutated from that in ways are closer to us than to chimps
^ The theory of Evolution' says this... Edit: Just re-read this quote and it's a bit confusing
I posted a documentary?/reenactment awhile back about all the suspected beginning humanoids, and even within that scientific community it was believed that multiple different kinds of humanoids basically just appeared at different times eating a variety of different kinds of foods..even things like tall grasses and bamboo like stuff to mostly meat..far before sapeins. Various ones on the spectrum simply did not make it.
In a way you could say the ones that adapted to learning how to pick out bone marrow and subsequently hunt were thus the 'fittest' and were able to then evolve further, but what you see prior to that is the emergence of such a species to begin with that had those tendencies and either survived or failed due to a variety of factors. It really doesn't make sense otherwise (to me anyway).
That documentary was about the most supported theory of our ancestry, and is based on the 'rules' of 'the theory of Evolution', and the fossil record...
If one is to say: I believe in evolution, then in a way its fairly human centered and would place any other apes as in the process as evolving towards us.
Belief has no place in science, and what you describe here is not even remotely close to the Theory of evolution...
You 'need' to actually understand 'the theory of Evolution' before there is any point in you criticising it.
It seems to me that you do in fact understand 'the theory of Evolution', but do not realise that it is 'the theory of Evolution'.
-
what the hell are you talking about?
exactly what I said was that even within evolutionary theories that it is incorrect to believe we evolved from chimps - which is in fact a commonly held belief. ON TOP OF THAT I also said I do not agree with it anyway. I don't see the contradiction here. Its like me saying I don't believe ice cream is healthy to eat, but vanilla is less toxic than chocolate. You agree that I described ice cream really well but now I've confused it with cookies or something..I'm confused. Why can't I describe the fallacies of how people are interpreting something..and propose something else at the same time or disagree with both?
as for the part about monkeys evolving towards us, that was somewhat of a joke, hence my references to sci-fi and cartoons. Some people DO believe this, that monekys are lower verisons of humans, thats new to you? Its irrelevant to me what is actually in the theory but rather the interpretations of the theory which do exist, as the theory in itself is likely incorrect.
The fossil record actually shows very little evidence of any 'evolution', which is why I brought up the mutation theory as one particular more likely alternative that isn't predicated on 'creationism'.
Not that I care to hear your answers on these, but Do all carnivores evolve out of herbivores? if so what is that instance or moment that they then consume animal foods to then evolve the characteristics to eat them. If not..what chain of events causes amoebas or so forth to start devouring other amoebas and evolve into other animals? When it comes down to it none of this shit makes any sense. The belief is being foolish enough to disclude multiple possibilities from the ones that have such obvious fallacies like 'evolution' which does carry with it as a theory a variety of blatantly false concepts of how species interact.
-
You just like to argue..
Mutation is part of the theory of Evolution.
Your criticism of Evolutionary theory based on examples of "Some people (who)DO believe ... that monekys are lower verisons of humans" is akin to the weak bully picking on the retarded kid to make himself feel big. You need to get strong and pick on the big kids of Evolution if you want to be anything but a joke(still in the analogy here)...
Carnivorous animals eat meat, so of course herbivorous animals had to come first..
Exactly, none of the shit in your head makes sense, which is why you 'need' to make sense of it before you rant on the subject.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_theory#The_discovery_of_genetics_challenges_Darwin.27s_theory
This result was understood widely as a direct threat to the "Natural Selection"
Hugo de Vries Mutation theory is considered to be in complete competition by evolutionary promonents and is largely unknown by virtually everyone on the planet. In fact its quite discredited and unacknowledged even amongst most scientists. I think this is fair to say.. I've studied this stuff for years...the universe is just incredibly complex and no way to cite its origin or even for the humam mind to comprehend how that works without a begining. At a certain point there is absolutely no way of describing how things came about on planet earth, only rule out things of which there is no evidence. All people see is what they want to believe.
I already explained why your criticism obviously did not understand the two separate points I was making. so I don't know what rant you are talking about.
Carnivorous animals eat meat, so of course herbivorous animals had to come first..
oh wow, ok well maybe take your own advice and try to explain how that might work...from the bacteria level upward. without relying on tropes of evoltuon to make sense of such things. Try to actually figure out how that would happen.
-
Ummm... drifting off topic guys.
You probably need to discuss "evolution" in another topic.
-
Ummm... drifting off topic guys.
You probably need to discuss "evolution" in another topic.
I agree. I mean..I've been recapping the health debates. The one last night was a pretty interesting tribal/natro/conventional medicine guy and ethnographer of sorts that basically said we need meat but very little of it. He lived with traditional people in the Bering Sea? I believe that hunted walrus and he himself and ate only meat and fat for a good part of the year..but that was his conclusions. The other guy was a hygienist vegan that ran a fasting retreat and said raw fruitarian was bad..but the same philosophy with some cooked vegetables and starches (but still no oils, sugar, fat) was best.
-
As far as I am aware the presently prevailing theory of Evolution involves mutation, as does my own understanding.
I re-wrote/re-posted that message like 6 times.
Edit: 7 times -_-
Edit: 8 times.
F... =/
-
As far as I am aware the presently prevailing theory of Evolution involves mutation, as does my own understanding.
miles, you are the one starting trouble here and are arguing semantics or basically just nonsense. Did you listen to any of these talks at all? have you read a single book David Wolfe has written to understand what he is saying or heard him speak about evolution? Have you ever actually read about Hugo de Vries prior to today or actually ever taken any other proponents of creationist theories like DW has and tried to not prove them wrong through what you 'know'..and thus accept them as possible ideas with an open mind? It sounds like you have not
When someone says they don't believe in what is labeled scientifically as a theory (after all) do you automatically assume they are wrong? it sounds like you do. Eventually I'll recap all the debates and so far it isn't the most uplifting information as could be expected from the point of view of what might be considered 'our' perspective on diets. This does not make them right or conversely us right for being anti them capiche? but nonetheless in a similar way its important to acknowledge what amounts to the experimental design of most theories around diet or larger concepts as sometimes being totally competing things who differences can often be crucial..particularly for health. No theory about 'how things are' will ever guarantee success on the individual, this already points to some of the problems of universaliztion within this very subject in trying to group how ALL THINGS operate which is absurd really.
what I said to CK is 100% correct. One can NOT believe in any aspect of evolution as defined by Darwin, and still believe species have shifted and changed since the begining of time. I presented problems with both some mainstream misinterpretations with evolution as well as hardcore problems with the theory itself.
The theory of evolution itself actually needs to already have some assumption that beings MUST HAVE evolved in order to make any sense at all. In other words it uses what it already assumes to be to actually prove what it is..which is why no matter how much proof of it actually happening (which is very little or none) it can never be considered real science. If that sounds crazy to you, you havn't actually thought about it critically, which isn't surprising because of the precise problem above, that anything that counters such a theory which really is more of a hypothesis is dismissed without actually questioning the very construction and motivation of the theory..and so on.
your new comment is bollocks of course, as you guys say over there. My link definitely proves that while 'mutations' might be found in evolution or like CK points out with 'punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualism', that THE Mutation Theory is considered to be a different way of thinking about this process which DEFEATS Darwin's theory if it is to be accepted. What I said is it is a more acceptable theory in terms of possibly articulating what not a single person on planet earth understands at all (including as I say: myself) or can illustrate in their own terms without such assumptions never-mind could possibly know for certain.
-
How many people he interview already?
I didnt listen to anybody yet did I miss some serious information ? vitalis spoke already?
-
How many people he interview already?
I didnt listen to anybody yet did I miss some serious information ? vitalis spoke already?
they are over half way through. I guess you have to buy the package to listen to Vitalis and others at this point. I've been impressed with a number of the talks, but hard to decipher any acknolwedgement of what I do or too many possible worthwhile changes to this type of diet, only acknowledgments of various things, so it depends on what you value. I'd say the single message so far is that veganism and raw foodism are both extreme and possibly not the best nutrtionally as oposed to omnivory and some cooking/processing, so I guess the worth is how convincing one would interpret those kinds of statements. Moderation with animal foods (when even proposed - half are still vegans/vegetarians of course) was also a biggie except I guess not by DV who only claims ominvory as important..not necesssarily limited meat. He claims he bought an entire cow this year and still hunts so I assume he is not recommending limited meat consumption, at least for himself, just stresses the value of omnivory and certain kinds of processing for plant foods (and I guess meat).
Mark Sisson and Sean Croxton (who is supposed to sum up) will probably be the only remaining people to speak about heavy animal oriented diets, although likely not raw. As I mentioned I don't think DV mentioned raw eating whatsoever, other then associating exclusive raw meat eating with people that were in the homo erectus period and prior FWIW.
-
miles, you are the one starting trouble here and are arguing semantics or basically just nonsense. Did you listen to any of these talks at all? have you read a single book David Wolfe has written to understand what he is saying or heard him speak about evolution? Have you ever actually read about Hugo de Vries prior to today or actually ever taken any other proponents of creationist theories like DW has and tried to not prove them wrong through what you 'know'..and thus accept them as possible ideas with an open mind? It sounds like you have not
When someone says they don't believe in what is labeled scientifically as a theory (after all) do you automatically assume they are wrong? it sounds like you do. Eventually I'll recap all the debates and so far it isn't the most uplifting information as could be expected from the point of view of what might be considered 'our' perspective on diets. This does not make them right or conversely us right for being anti them capiche? but nonetheless in a similar way its important to acknowledge what amounts to the experimental design of most theories around diet or larger concepts as sometimes being totally competing things who differences can often be crucial..particularly for health. No theory about 'how things are' will ever guarantee success on the individual, this already points to some of the problems of universaliztion within this very subject in trying to group how ALL THINGS operate which is absurd really.
what I said to CK is 100% correct. One can NOT believe in any aspect of evolution as defined by Darwin, and still believe species have shifted and changed since the begining of time. I presented problems with both some mainstream misinterpretations with evolution as well as hardcore problems with the theory itself.
The theory of evolution itself actually needs to already have some assumption that beings MUST HAVE evolved in order to make any sense at all. In other words it uses what it already assumes to be to actually prove what it is..which is why no matter how much proof of it actually happening (which is very little or none) it can never be considered real science. If that sounds crazy to you, you havn't actually thought about it critically, which isn't surprising because of the precise problem above, that anything that counters such a theory which really is more of a hypothesis is dismissed without actually questioning the very construction and motivation of the theory..and so on.
your new comment is bollocks of course, as you guys say over there. My link definitely proves that while 'mutations' might be found in evolution or like CK points out with 'punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualism', that THE Mutation Theory is considered to be a different way of thinking about this process which DEFEATS Darwin's theory if it is to be accepted. What I said is it is a more acceptable theory in terms of possibly articulating what not a single person on planet earth understands at all (including as I say: myself) or can illustrate in their own terms without such assumptions never-mind could possibly know for certain.
WTF? I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution is not completely limited to Darwin's ideas. You speak of this "mutation theory" as if it is exclusive, and it is not. You have to understand that Darwin was NOT aware of the existence of genetic information when he wrote Origin of Species. It seems mutationism places an emphasis on random errors due to mistranslation of DNA, and yes this does happen. Genetic information is not copied 100% accurately. Even a mistranslation of a single base pair can completely change the phenotypic expression of a gene.
"the mutationists saw evolution as a two-step process of the chance occurrence of a mutation"
"The mutationists denied that selection is creative, and they gave mutation a certain measure of control over the course of evolution."
(from wikipedia, not the most reliable but I'm using this to make a point)
I do not disagree with these statements at ALL. Individuals of a species can build up varying degrees of neutral mutation caused by random errors of DNA translation that do not affect survival in their current environment. When the environment changes, some of these neutral mutations can then provide survival advantages causing their frequency to increase. In this respect, mutation IS A DRIVING FORCE IN EVOLUTION. Natural selection works on the variation CAUSED BY THE MUTATIONS to change the gene pool of the species. This is why genetic diversity is very important.
I also do not think you understand what theory in science actually means. People say "OH WELL, it's just a theory so it's probably full of bullshit."
In science there are varying degrees of certainly when defining a concept
Least to most certain
Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law
Hypothesis would have the certainly equal to the amount of certainty a common person would attribute to the word theory.
Hypothesis becomes a theory when a HUGE amount of data exists to support a model for explaining an idea. Science is NOT supposed to be pretentious (although sometimes can be and I understand this), and this is why they don't call it "The fact of evolution."
It is not called the "Law of Evolution" (although I wish they did so misinformed creationists would stop using this as a point) because it only refers to universal constants, mathematical concepts (many exist in chemistry and physics i.e gas law/laws of motion etc)
"One can NOT believe in any aspect of evolution as defined by Darwin, and still believe species have shifted and changed since the begining of time."
ANY aspect? So I imagine species changed because wizards used their magic wands to change the species or the flying spaghetti monster created the universe and put the species on Earth in their current form.
I also would refrain from giving much credibility to David Wolfe. He comes off as a bloody charlatan trying hard to sell obscure superfoods/herbs that humans haven't really even eaten during our evolutionary history, saying that somehow they will somehow save us from diseases of civilization. He is also similar to Daniel Cousens in the respect that he uses some sort of strange new age spirituality nonsense to explain which diet is appropriate for human beings.
From what I'm reading, it seems like you are arguing with yourself.
-
"One can NOT believe in any aspect of evolution as defined by Darwin, and still believe species have shifted and changed since the beginning of time."
I said as defined by Darwin, how can you then argue this as if I didn't specify that? again obviously if I am putting forth the mutation theory as a MORE PLAUSIBLE theory I agree with certain types of 'evolution', just not Darwin's theory of Evolution, which is in fact 'evolution'. What is wrong with this?
I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution is not completely limited to Darwin's ideas.
You speak of this "mutation theory" as if it is exclusive, and it is not. You have to understand that Darwin was NOT aware of the existence of genetic information when he wrote Origin of Species.
I do not disagree with these statements at ALL.
it doesn't matter what you agree with as i'm not saying you are limiting yourself to Darwins exact interpretation, only thar Evolution is indeed the creation of a person called Darwin who had these assumptions without evidence that people have then now tried to prove...and found what they think they were looking for instead of the other way around - seeing the evidence and then forming a hypothesis- theory etc... see the differnce?
If there is a theory which totally contradicts selection in the traditional interpretation, then the original theory is 100% wrong. Even if some elements are similar they are basically completely different assessments of how things happen and one cannot go on about all the other perceived concepts as automatically correct, they become suspect like all theories of selection for instance.
Dismissing magic and people as charlatans..when you havn't even heard them out (as in actually tried to understand without preconceived notions) is precisely the point. I didn't say I give credibility to anyone, I just listen and don't make arbitrary judgments based on what I think I know or how wrong i think someone is. I don't dismiss theories for being theories, I dismiss theories that have no evidence, thats the essence of the true scientific mind.
The reason this is important and the the point if me even posting about it in this thread..pointing out your attack of basically something you don't understand or agree with...is many people are here are just as closed minded about things as vegans on their forums and will likely be off doing whatever in the future despite what they believe today. Its totally possible that certain things factor into diets of relevance today that are different then in the past. Nothing crazy about that. Whenever one questions (or doesn't) the establishment, they have to wonder which other forces and such they are aligning with or which equally faulty concepts they also now embrace. Things are often not simple but complex, chaotic, individual.
-
let's not get sidetracked with the "evolution" discussion again. You guys can always open up a new topic on "evolution".
-
One other general trend is that all the vegans gave pretty strict ideas of what was good (high fat -low fruits, superfoods etc..) or not to eat (animal products, sugar, fats, oils) and specifics to how much whereas virtually non of the 'meat eaters' said what they eat or advised to eat. An exception was Mercola who actually did mention that at least he did better on mostly protein and fat, much of it raw and gave two separate general categories of diets for people to follow that were fairly specific. Likely this was not to alienate any potential clients or start unnecessary controversy. Donna gates and others just spoke to how necessary protein would be for SOME people and which foods were valuable or bad. Both Jonny Bowden and DV were not very descriptive on what their actual diets consisted of.
tonight is Mark Sisson vs Freddy Patenaude. I'm guessing this won't be a problem for Mark. I really wish it was actual debate style. Or at least there were responses at the end. Either way this should give some sense on low carb at least from the perspective of cooked foods but within a raw foods type context.
also worth noting is almost all the people were basically self described gurus or clinicians. Other than T Colin Campbell (who I guess is also a clinician) there were no real researchers like Cordain or Eades or I guess Mcdougall on the other side of things.
-
I am really curious about the T. Colin Campbell situation... looks like he wimped out
Good for him, Fallon would have demolished the weak old man.
The email says that he will speak tomorrow night and C. Gerson will also be speaking.
It would appear as if these guys are sore losers.
I support their right to eat that way though.. as DV said, we can't all live here.
Maybe it is a natural occurrence for a good chunk of the population to starve themselves into not reproducing(like gay people)...
in a weird esoteric way
-
Mark Sisson said some positive things about raw, including acknowledging heterocyclic amines as being a possible issue. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. It's to his credit that his first instinct is not to bash things that he doesn't have a lot of experience with.
"I don't look to eat things raw, but I don't have ... any problem with that [eating meats raw]. I had a great piece of steak the other night that was essentially raw by the time I cut into it and it tasted great it was ... very satisfying and tender and all the things I wanted. Conversely I don't overcook meats, because I do think ... there may be an issue there in some cases with HCA's and other things. So I ... do try to prepare the meats that I cook myself or request in a restaurant in a fashion that's not burned or overcooked or too ... seared." http://www.renegadehealth.com/ghd/blog/videopopup/night7.html
-
Dr. JE Williams' interview (on night 6) was interesting in that he is the only advocate of a plant-based diet I've seen who acknowledges that the traditional Inuit meat-based diet was also very healthy (for them at least).
Sean Croxton on night 8 said some positive things about (cooked) Paleo: "I like to go back to Paleolithic times. ... Just eat real foods." He referenced Loren Cordain and Robb Wolf.
Sean Croxton and Mike Adams both emphasized on night 8 something that addresses one of the biggest problems I've seen in dietary forums: "What works for me may not work for the next person. ... Do what works for you. Somebody can write about what worked for them and they think it's going to work for the rest of the world and that's definitely not true."
-
Mark Sisson turned out to offer a really sensible argument, but not much to report here applicable to raw paleos. He did as Phil points out offer some issues with certain types of cooking, but didn't stress others. Stress turned out to be a major factor for Sisson with health, even claiming a no stress vegetarian diet could be superior than a high stress healthy diet. More on this later as it turns out this is/was one of the key subliminal messages of the 'debates' generally, that stress over 'the perfect diet' often turns out to be not a perfect way of being healthy.
He also mentioned how he has lowered his fruit recommendations even since he started blogging, and gave the seeds of many arguments for doing so, particularly for a high fat diet. Patenaude essentially agreed that fruit diets would not be good for those eating 'high' fat and protein but that blood sugar (for one) wasn't an issue for mostly fruit diets. He did have some of the typical arguments about ketosis being a survival mechanism and produced acid in the body, which could be a legitimate concern for some - who knows. However like everyone on the 'meat' side of things tended to point out....in many cultures even in recent history these things did not lead to any of the diseases that people associate with animal food or ketosis in the case of the Inuit.
Sally Fallon did mention that she eats meat raw and that all traditional peoples ate some meat raw. Essentially her argument against eating certain meats raw and unprepared (her example was liver) was that she believed in eating wholesome food served in an enjoyable way and that translating into good health not that there was any physical reason for not doing so.
---
The 'Sum Up' - which I have to say was certainly really poor in actually taking any information OF the debates and applying it to anything - essentially had the same exact message of Sisson in terms of stress of the actual diets themselves on health and avoiding dogma.
Contrast to Mr. World Peace Diet (Will Tuttle) who absolutely had not a single piece of information about physical health..only to suggest that people were far too concerned about themselves and this in turn would not bring them anything good - health or not. Ok, well..The reason why this argument is powerful is like religion it contains fear of the unknown and unknown undefinable repercussions even in contrast to increasing physical health. To argue against is merely to suggest the reality as is visible...like the arguments that Vitalis, Fallon, and J. E. Williams pointed out quite well in that even the most 'selfless' of spiritual peoples adopting a vegetarian lifestyle can run into a variety of problems within the physical, thus the original statement in a sense having negative moral implications itself for both the continuation of the species even down to dogmatic and harmful opinions on farming practices and so forth.
I think where I disagree with the overall 'moderate' subliminal message of this whole project is.... what people need to keep in mind on any health approach (and i'm certainly biased in terms of vegans - but really applies to everyone) is that merely getting by or even how you feel is not really a very strong indicator of optimal health - regardless of real measurable physical things. In the summary they say try this or that for two weeks or thirty days to know if a path is good, but in my experience it took me way longer to experience any benefits at all from the things that ultimately have given the best results.
---
Alot of these things are indeed determined by your actual pre-existent state of health. Even if one has all kinds of symptoms that go away these could be due to any number of things - or likely lack of things. Many vegan 'athletes' and long lived vegetarians as pointed out by J. E. Williams, grew up eating either animal foods or actually high quality animal foods in the case of folks like T Colin Campbell. There being virtually no competitive athletes that are vegetarian and raised completely as vegetarian from birth nor any raw foodists despite that being around in many forms for the last century+ as well. Not that athleticism is an indicator of the best diet per se, only to say there are virtually no representations from at least the small samples of people raised from birth on any such approach which is significant.
Vegans and vegetarians and raw foodists alike always seem to be on the search for these 'exceptions' in a way to prove what should be ubiquitous if physical health is manifested the best from a vegetarian diet. They seem to forever criticize the PARTICULAR permutations of the diets of India (for instance) instead of acknowledging a simple comment from DV that these people certainly were not and are not the most robust healthy people, and likely needed the heavy animal products they have employed to even reproduce and survive at all.
Interestingly Patenaude was the one to actually acknowledge in nature and even in traditional cultures that obviously those who ate a more omnivorous diet would be the ones to survive over a limited diet of vegan foods, but that because we live in a society with access to all kinds of things that we can get access to our best diet in abundance without having to eat the other stuff.
I think he briefly mentioned it in the talk, but he has also agreed in the past that wild fruits would not be appealing or sustainable calorie wise for a contemporary active person, and that we should be grateful for sweet tasting hybrid fruits, in comparison to modern ones.
?
combined, it seems to be a poor argument that we ever ate and thrived as a culture from a mostly fruit diet with poisonous or hardly edible uncultivated plants, nevermind accounts at all for the problems caused by modern fruits whilst citing all kinds of problems with modern meats...
Some of the only arguments from vegans I'm inclined to pay attention to would have to do with physical problems caused by CONTEMPORARY sources of meat, dairy etc. Of course Fallon and Aajonus have worked hard to promote that these foods actually are helpful in detoxification (Fallon mentions in this talk the falsity of mercury in fish being a health issue, although demonizes amalgam fillings) it seems this issue is very up in the air. At the same time eating lower on the food chain simply does not make sense if one can argue that these foods are not conducive to the basics of human health, unless we are not speaking of that as the base of a diets building blocks.
Worth noting of the final sum up, Croxton recommends a high fat animal foods diet, and Mike Adams now recommends the consumption of at least some animal foods including meat apparently. Both these guys actually have a larger scope over the internet than any raw or vegan guru to my knowledge. It seems the intention as well is to suggest animal foods are probably necessary in some quantity, although I believe the organizer and others still believe in a largely plant based diet and even a completely vegan diet for healing. To me this obviously contains naivete still in terms of the healing potential of animal based foods.
Interestingly enough during the last debate I saw online that Erwan Le Corre and the Colting bros sat down an enjoyed a meal of totally raw reindeer. If one doesn't know about Jonas Colting and Erwan, I would suggest anyone perceiving veganism (or any set permutation of raw foodism really) to be the key to athleticism or even endurance or what health can be...to raise their bar perhaps and be far more open minded to folks like this. As for Croxton and Mike Adams, I don't know how I feel about 80/20 if 20 = cake, but I'm not going to second guess Croxton's wisdom to make others healthy because of it. To me optimal health IS a balance, but that fulcrum is probably more in the middle of having
- a specific diet healing diet that follows a specific function in repairing any and all ailments and beyond
- being exclusive of the things discovered by what a well read and non dogmatic take on the present research as being harmful, including the harmful potential of many 'natural' foods or too much emphasis on those foods.
- and making sure that is something one can commit to for whatever period is necessary to increase health.
After that maybe it would be nice to go back to 20% booze and cake, but I'm not sure if this raw food thing works that way!