Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: lorenmark on May 08, 2013, 06:25:35 am
-
Basically the subject says it all. I've never done it before, any pointers?
Also, looking to use the remaining ground egg shells in coffee and tea to neutralize the phytic acid content. My body appears to be super sensitive to phytic acid, but I really enjoy my morning caffeine - trying to have the best of both worlds. Anyone ever tried this?
I'd put dairy in my coffee or tea, although my body handles dairy horribly. I need something with calcium to neutralize the phytic acid so it doesn't pull minerals from my body.
-
I'd avoid the egg whites, unless they taste good to you. Yolks are where the good stuff is.
-
While it's true that yolks are the best part, egg whites also contain some good stuff. For example, raw egg whites are one of the few foods that contain all the major precursors necessary for your body to produce glutathione, the master antioxidant.
I've been eating whole raw eggs for years now without problems, and at this point both the whites and the yolks usually taste mildly sweet to me (I didn't care for the whites at first, except for the whites in duck eggs), but I buy the best quality local eggs I can get. My favorite for taste is raw duck eggs, but I buy mostly pastured chicken eggs, including some fertile eggs (which reportedly contain less avidin), when they're available.
Since this is a raw forum, you're probably not going to get a lot of coffee and tea tips here. I usually add Kerrygold butter when I drink coffee or black tea, but it's not considered raw Paleo, of course (though I buy the lightest beans I can find and don't heat the hell out of it).
-
Finding good eggs can be tricky, so I often do without. I absolutely will not eat eggs from cornfed or soyfed hens, even if they say "organic" on the label, which would indicate no GMOs. When I do find good eggs, they costs about $8 to $10 per dozen. I am an egg-yolk eater. A good egg yolk tastes so good I can barely stand the ecstasy.
-
Thank you for the pointers guys.
I've yet to be able to find GMO free eggs... I think all of them have at least corn or soy.
After doing a bunch of research last night, I'm going to give up caffeine. I believe I may actually have an allergy to it and it may be the cause of my eczema and other auto-immune issues. I also read that overtime it eats away at the mucosa barrier of the digestive wall, which I believe is strongly associated with auto-immune issues.
Do you guys ever worry about calcium on a raw paleo diet? I guess it's not a problem as long as you can get raw dairy. I know Loren Cordain states you don't need nearly as much as the modern RDA states, although I'd be interested to hear y'alls take.
-
I eat eggs daily. Max one at a time. In the beginning I ate a few at a time, but now I just poke a couple of holes in the shell and suck it all out. Tastes fine.
Regarding tea/coffee and other hot drinks, give them up if you want to be comfortable. Alternatively, do not boil the water.
One other possibility is to add fresh cardamom (green) to it as it somehow neutralizes the bad effects of it.
-
Do you guys ever worry about calcium on a raw paleo diet? I guess it's not a problem as long as you can get raw dairy.
It's rather not a problem as long as you avoid Neolithic and modern foods. Dairy consumption is Neolithic and even a few decades ago there were still large populations in South West Asia, Africa and Oceania who never consumed any dairy.
-
Dairy consumption is Neolithic and even a few decades ago there were still large populations in South West Asia, Africa and Oceania who never consumed any dairy.
You seem to like your anti-dairy rant Iguana. ;)
There are also large populations that have consumed dairy for a very long time. Some people do well with dairy and some don't. This person seems to not do well with dairy, so they should avoid it.
Bearing in mind that putting dairy in a hot drink renders it no longer raw if indeed it was in the first place. Non-raw or pasteurized milk will be more likely to cause issues than raw dairy.
-
No, Raw-al. People are free to drink milk from animals if they like, even when they are adults! But as this is a raw Paleo forum I have to remind contributors that dairy and animal milk consumption is recent on the evolution timescale and therefore not paleo. ;)
This is so obvious that I wonder why so many posters relentlessly keep on touting milk and dairy here.
-
... it may be the cause of my eczema and other auto-immune issues. I also read that overtime it eats away at the mucosa barrier of the digestive wall, which I believe is strongly associated with auto-immune issues.
Yeah, I think anyone who has autoimmune issues should probably try doing a super-strict autoimmune diet for at least a month, based on my experience and others. You can always add foods back in later, one by one, testing each as you go. My immune system has gradually calmed down some over the years and I'm tolerating more foods than I used to.
You may get grief from friends/relatives/bloggers/... for it, with today's worries about eating disorders, "orthorexia", etc., but I found that the health benefits were worth the getting hassled about it, and when I later added back foods I found I could tolerate, most of the worryworts relaxed some when they saw that. In my case I also had test results I could show them if they doubted I had an autoimmune issue and an elimination diet was actually prescribed for me, which I found satisfied folks who feel that a therapy is only safe if prescribed by someone in a white coat (though I found that my own personal testing of foods was vastly more effective than the prescribed diet based on the test).
Do you guys ever worry about calcium on a raw paleo diet? I guess it's not a problem as long as you can get raw dairy. I know Loren Cordain states you don't need nearly as much as the modern RDA states, although I'd be interested to hear y'alls take.
Other raw Paleo sources of calcium include marrow, greens, small bones and raw bone broths (there's a thread on that) .
Most concerns about calcium relate to bones. Collagen protein and phosphate are also important components of bones and there are important cofactors to calcium like vitamins D and K2 and other minerals like magnesium and zinc, but hardly anyone talks about them (other than vitamin D) because the dairy industry doesn't have a profit interest in those.
Another option is to try to improve the gut microbiota. Beneficial microbes tend to calm the immune system down, per the Old Friends Hypothesis and recent research. I find this much more difficult to achieve than improvement via dietary effects, unfortunately.
There are still other therapies that reportedly calm and improve the immune system, most of which involve hormesis or relaxation, such as cryotherapy, meditation and relaxation techniques, sunlight, quality sleep, etc.
-
No, Raw-al. People are free to drink milk from animals if they like, even when they are adults! But as this is a raw Paleo forum I have to remind contributors that dairy and animal milk consumption is recent on the evolution timescale and therefore not paleo. ;)
This is so obvious that I wonder why so many posters relentlessly keep on touting milk and dairy here.
I am not touting anything, I simply stated that some do OK on it and some do not.
As far as the paleo part goes, those boundaries have evaporated, as pottery has been found dating back 20,000 years.
-
Not many folks eat or gnaw on bones these days, and few eat grassfed bone marrow (and the calcium content is reportedly very low, though I suspect it helps in other ways, such as via K2), so I can understand some concern about calcium, even though it's probably overblown. I have a friend from a more traditional culture and I was astonished to see her chew up and consume bones. I asked her if it damaged her teeth and she said no. Sure enough her teeth are gleaming white and healthy. Granted, the bones were made softer by cooking, but I now think that it actually helps, rather than hurts, dental health, though it may wear down the surfaces a bit.
Alternatively, do not boil the water.
That's a good point, most folks don't know that you don't have to boil coffee or tea to make it, though some are aware of "sun tea." And you sure don't need to keep a pot of coffee constantly on for hours, so that it's always hot, as is commonly done at cafeterias and restaurants. I'm curious what the levels of heat-related toxins are in coffee that has been kept super-hot for hours like that.
-
coffee is one of the worst drugs I have ever done. I could feel it wrecking my body right away. Thats not to say it cant be used medicinally sometimes like in coffee enemas. I think stuff like that is unnnecessary but some people may want to force things and thats cool too. Drinking it every day is highly advised against though.
I dont really like drinking eggs by themselves. I have a bout 8 a day though in delicious smoothies. Do 4 eggs some butter honey and any fruit you want and you quickly and deliciously taken in 4 eggs and a bunch of other great stuff.
I love my shakes.
-
and have you tried raw dairy?
-
I take in powdered egg shells for calcium. I get pastured eggs from a farmers' market. That is about the only way to get eggs shells that do not have chemicals on them.
-
I am not touting anything
It’s not especially about you, there are plenty others. Almost the majority of posters on this Raw Paleo Forum are dairy proponents, which is nonsensical unless we change the name of the forum to “Raw Neo Forum”.
I simply stated that some do OK on it and some do not.
And then what? Some do OK (at least for a while) on white refined sugar, coffee, cigarettes, bread and cooked grain fed meat. Long term consequences take a long time to appear… ;)
As far as the paleo part goes, those boundaries have evaporated, as pottery has been found dating back 20,000 years.
Perhaps, in some places, I don’t know. Domestication of animals happened a few millenary after the invention of pottery, it seems, and not everywhere. Anyway, whether it is 20,000 years or 10,000 years doesn’t change the order of magnitude against the duration of mammal’s evolution on Earth which is in the order of hundreds millions years and against the 6,000,000 years separating the hominid branch of the apes branch.
and have you tried raw dairy?
Yes. Raw milk, raw butter, raw cheese were part of my diet during more than 30 years, with an interruption when I lived in Polynesia. My health had greatly improved during this stay on Pacific Islands, but at the time I wasn’t aware that it could have been be due the absence of dairy.
Moreover GCB and family were drinking raw milk at the beginning of their experiment with all raw nutrition. They even bought a goat to have their own, controlled, source of milk after having noticed infections and other health problems during the alternative periods in which they drank raw milk. But their own perfect raw goat milk triggered the same problems.
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dairy-food-articles/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dairy-food-articles/)
Please keep your promoting of dairy confined into the “Primal diet” section and let’s talk about raw eggs.
-
I am not touting anything, I simply stated that some do OK on it and some do not.
As far as the paleo part goes, those boundaries have evaporated, as pottery has been found dating back 20,000 years.
please tell me more about this pottery. Iv always been suspicious of mainstream claims of when and what paleo time were
-
I was asking the original poster if he tried raw dairy.
I also didnt know that eggs were considered paleo by you. Theyd probably be only be a bit less rare than killing an animal with milk,
-
As far as the paleo part goes, those boundaries have evaporated, as pottery has been found dating back 20,000 years.
It should also be mentioned that mastery of fire is generally dated around 400,000 years ago, thus according to such reasoning we should be even much more perfectly adapted to grilled food — and to cereal grains as well since cereals cultivation very likely predates animals domestication.
I was asking the original poster if he tried raw dairy.
I also didnt know that eggs were considered paleo by you. Theyd probably be only be a bit less rare than killing an animal with milk,
I didn’t know who you asked but I answered anyway about my personal case, which I thought could be of some interest to you and others.
All kinds of eggs are found in nature where it has not been depleted by men. Sea turtles eggs for example are very easy to get, about 100 or 120 at once in a nest. Those turtles have become endangered species since men have killed most of them.
Killing a female wild animal and sucking a little bit of milk from her must indeed be a remarkable circumstance: I guess even more unusual than finding a carcass grilled by the lava of a volcanic eruption or by a forest fire started by a lightning.
-
The only raw dairy I've been able to get is unpasteurized cultured cheeses, which my body didn't seem to handle all that great. With that being said, after I do consume a dairy product, my body becomes extra lean and hard which makes me wonder if I'm getting enough calcium.
I'm on day two of no caffeine, and the redness in my joints on my hands and feet have greatly reduced.
-
My coffee "experiment" ended quickly due to an arthritis flare-up, even though I was using good coffee and cold-brewed methods.
-
please tell me more about this pottery. Iv always been suspicious of mainstream claims of when and what paleo time were
I heard about it in an audiobook (I forget the name) (the book wasn't paleo tho... ;D )
It was about South America, I believe the Amazon region. An author had gone there in search of a white British explorer, who had died in questionable circumstances around the beginning of the 20th century. (maybe he drank some milk and died) LOL
When there, he happened upon an archeologist who had found remnants of an ancient city in the jungle. The guess was that the conquistadors had spread their fatal disease to the locals and the whole civilization had collapsed in disease, leaving only a few people to survive in the jungle. These aboriginals are still there in this hostile environment, living in small family groups, which have been written about on this site.
The upshoot is that the stories that the returning Conquistadors told of a Golden City, large beautiful Amazon women warriors, etc may have been true.
No obvious visible remnants were left, because the cities were overrun with jungle in a very short time. Evidence of bridges, roads, etc built in a north/south/east/west grid were found, indicating an advanced society.
I suspect that there is more to history than the feeble attempts at explaining it that issue from the "out of Africa model". This model has quite a few holes in it that get conveniently swept under the rug, in order to keep the story straight.
These peoples had domesticated animals, but they were smarter about it and kept them outside, so they did not breed disease in shelters like the European model did.
Archeologists sound so intelligent when they make up their guesses about history. The fun part is reading the latest reports, that refute the earlier guesses.
-
My coffee "experiment" ended quickly due to an arthritis flare-up, even though I was using good coffee and cold-brewed methods.
I believe my arthritis is highly correlated with my other autoimmune issues, I wonder if caffeine is the underlyig cause...
-
My coffee "experiment" ended quickly due to an arthritis flare-up, even though I was using good coffee and cold-brewed methods.
Have you tried decaf coffee to see if that causes problems too? To see if it's JUST the caffeine, or maybe it's also the coffee? My mom has carpel tunnel and I think arthritis too, and she drinks lots of coffee and coke, which I have been trying to convince her to stop drinking to no avail. But at least here is one more thing I can use to try to convince her. Even so, she still has the mentality that, "Oh, just a little won't hurt," so she thinks drinking half a cup of half-decaf coffee every morning will be fine.. sigh.
-
I switched to green tea from coffee a few weeks ago and my arthritis persisted, so I think it really is the caffeine or another molecule present in both coffee and tea causing, or exacerbating the problem.
-
I switched to green tea from coffee a few weeks ago and my arthritis persisted, so I think it really is the caffeine or another molecule present in both coffee and tea causing, or exacerbating the problem.
Ah, well.. I just wanted to see if there was an excuse I could make to keep my mom from just switching to decaf coffee.. how do they even decaffeinate coffee anyways? it seems to me like it would be a very degrading process.
-
All kinds of eggs are found in nature where it has not been depleted by men. Sea turtles eggs for example are very easy to get, about 100 or 120 at once in a nest. Those turtles have become endangered species since men have killed most of them.
Indeed, and I've read accounts saying that prairie bird eggs were so plentiful, in season, and so easy to obtain (the nests were on the ground), that the Lakota people left most of the egg-gathering to little children (with at least one chaperon, of course).
Killing a female wild animal and sucking a little bit of milk from her must indeed be a remarkable circumstance: I guess even more unusual than finding a carcass grilled by the lava of a volcanic eruption or by a forest fire started by a lightning.
Sucking? I've seen a couple reports of hunter-gatherers pouring milk from the animal's udder into a container made from the stomach (or was it the hide or bladder?), allowing it to ferment, thus reducing the lactose, and later sharing it. It wouldn't come out to a lot per person, but it was interesting. Another interesting question is whether much adaptation is needed to say, raw goat butter, to begin with. I'll try to stay out of debates about the definition of "Paleo," I just wonder--what if there's nothing in raw goat butter that requires much adaptation by a person? Then wouldn't it be relatively healthy to eat for that person? It's at least theoretically possible, yes?
-
Another interesting question is whether much adaptation is needed to say, raw goat butter, to begin with. I'll try to stay out of debates about the definition of "Paleo," I just wonder--what if there's nothing in raw goat butter that requires much adaptation by a person? Then wouldn't it be relatively healthy to eat for that person? It's at least theoretically possible, yes?
Yes sure, it is theoretically possible. Some individuals may be fairly adapted to dairy (or perhaps at least to dairy fat), but we can’t know who because short term reactions or absence of reactions aren’t insuring that there won’t be any serious trouble in the long term. So, refraining from all dairy as well as all cooked food can be seen as a wise precautionary principle.
But of course, if there’s nothing else to eat, it will be better to eat butter than let us die of starvation… ;)
-
And might there not be worse foods to eat then raw butter? Such as margarine made from corn and soybean oil? And are foods purely healthy vs. purely unhealthy or do they lie on a spectrum of unhealthiness/healthiness with some only slightly bad or slightly good, on average and with individual variations?
-
As explained by Nicole at Montrame to me was that raw proteins will be substituted for old damaged cooked proteins that have been used and built into one's body. As I have written here before, I had experienced that directly years ago when going instincto eating lots of raw tuna, and the massive eliminations resulting from have grown up as a kid on canned tuna. I believe the same can be said for raw dairy for those having grown up on pasturized dairy. And I wonder if that might have been what Guy Claude was experiencing when he experimented with dairy,, first cow, then goat? Dairy is such a variable food item. Does one have the necessary Amounts of Lactose digesting bacteria in the intestines to handle the lactose, or has one taken the efforts to build the bacteria numbers up. Is one combining dairy with other foods? Is the dairy fermented or straight from the animal. Is the animal not only grass fed, but GREEN grass fed,, pretty hard to do year around in France, unless you're in the South of France (I would get mucous from my goats milk in the late fall (every year ) when the green grass would turn brown for the few months before the rains came again).
-
Yes sure, it is theoretically possible. Some individuals may be fairly adapted to dairy (or perhaps at least to dairy fat), but we can’t know who because short term reactions or absence of reactions aren’t insuring that there won’t be any serious trouble in the long term. So, refraining from all dairy as well as all cooked food can be seen as a wise precautionary principle.
But of course, if there’s nothing else to eat, it will be better to eat butter than let us die of starvation… ;)
Dairy has made me feel much better immediately (goat dairy I havent tried any cow milk that went well for me yet, cheese and butter and sour cream from cow digest fine though). I owe my weight gain to it, before I added dairy gaining weight was impossible and now the added fat I have thanks to the dairy makes me feel much more...sturdy would be a good word to describe it. I dont know if the muscle iv gained has anything to do with dairy because it came after I started working out but the fat I gained was definitly a dairy thing and definitly makes me a feel a lot bettr than without it.
-
And might there not be worse foods to eat then raw butter? Such as margarine made from corn and soybean oil? And are foods purely healthy vs. purely unhealthy or do they lie on a spectrum of unhealthiness/healthiness with some only slightly bad or slightly good, on average and with individual variations?
I for sure agree that most people commonly eat are much worst things than raw butter! If such junk can be called food remains an open question! ;)
The concept of “healthy food” is something I don’t recognize anymore. When we limit our appreciation to clean raw paleo stuffs, there are good, tasty foods and then all the spectrum of more or less neutral to bad tasting things. This gradation from good to bad is highly variable and constantly shifting: it fluctuates according to the amount, the concerned person, her present state as well as with the quality, state of ripeness, etc. of a given foodstuff (there are bad carrots and good carrots, for example). Something may be good for someone in a given amount and bad for someone else in the same amount. It’s all a matter of dosage, everything ingested in excess becoming detrimental or even toxic.
Moreover, fried potatoes, bread and pasteurized cheese could be qualified “healthy” when it saves someone from starvation. ;D
As explained by Nicole at Montrame to me was that raw proteins will be substituted for old damaged cooked proteins that have been used and built into one's body. As I have written here before, I had experienced that directly years ago when going instincto eating lots of raw tuna, and the massive eliminations resulting from have grown up as a kid on canned tuna. I believe the same can be said for raw dairy for those having grown up on pasturized dairy. And I wonder if that might have been what Guy Claude was experiencing when he experimented with dairy,, first cow, then goat?
That could be a possible explanation, Van. But I doubt GCB, as the meticulous observer he is, would have confused spontaneous infections with detoxination symptoms. Several years after he logically questioned the consumption of dairy products, a lot of scientific papers were published questioning also the suitability of animal milk for human consumption. At least in Europe, many dietitians are now also condemning the consumption of animal milk, moreover in adulthood, something no wild animal does on this planet. There’s no cross consumption of milk between different species, except some very rare and exceptional cases, each mammal species having it specific milk whit the exact composition adapted to the species’ offspring.
Here (edit: in Europe) there’s still only the dairy industry to promote milk consumption. >D
-
Dairy has made me feel much better immediately (goat dairy I havent tried any cow milk that went well for me yet, cheese and butter and sour cream from cow digest fine though). I owe my weight gain to it, before I added dairy gaining weight was impossible and now the added fat I have thanks to the dairy makes me feel much more...sturdy would be a good word to describe it. I dont know if the muscle iv gained has anything to do with dairy because it came after I started working out but the fat I gained was definitly a dairy thing and definitly makes me a feel a lot bettr than without it.
Bread and pasta, would certainly make you gain fat. Take cooked food again, and you’ll feel good for a while because detoxination is stopped and cereals contains opioids, as milk. You can gain a lot weight on cooked food! Look around you, how many people are obese? Ask one of them what he eats to have gained so much weight!
-
But that is where you are wrong. When I ate that crap i used to have a very different kind of fat. It was jiggly and bulged out in certain places. And it always felt gross and like it weighed me down. Now all of my fat is very dense and spread out evenly all over my body and the more of it I have the more energy I have. I remember running when I was skinny which I havent done in a long time. I recently had to sprint somewhere now that I have all this fat I sprintd longer than I ever could hav when I was skinny and I was faster and not even that tired when I was done. I felt very different than when I was skinny or jiggly fat and this is after not practicing running for almost a year.
SO I know that theres a huge difference between bread fat and raw fat. I can feel it like its worlds apart. THis is from personal experience.
-
I for sure agree that most people commonly eat are much worst things than raw butter! If such junk can be called food remains an open question! ;)
Well, at least we agree that raw butter is less "junk" than margarine! ;D
The concept of “healthy food” is something I don’t recognize anymore. When we limit our appreciation to clean raw paleo stuffs, there are good, tasty foods and then all the spectrum of more or less neutral to bad tasting things.
Use whatever terms you wish. I'm not concerned about semantics like "healthy" vs. "clean". One minor caveat--"clean" is sufficiently vague that it better enables BSing. I've seen vegans misuse the term. Luckily, you stick mainly to real world experience, Francois, so I don't see that as a concern in this case.
As for taste, raw Zamorano sheep cheese is one of the best tasting foods I've tried (for my tastes, of course, not everyone likes it). Too expensive to eat regularly, though, and I seem to get even better benefits from eating cheap suet and marrow, though they don't taste as good to me.
Moreover, fried potatoes, bread and pasteurized cheese could be qualified “healthy” when it saves someone from starvation. ;D
Don't worry, I'm not starving. ;D
At least in Europe, many dietitians are now also condemning the consumption of animal milk, moreover in adulthood, something no wild animal does on this planet.
What is your evidence for this? What predator refuses to eat the milk in a full udder? I've seen videos of lions and hyenas consuming whole carcasses of small animals, bones and all. They didn't spit out any milk. Jackals and even feral hogs reportedly do this.
Here there’s still only the dairy industry to promote milk consumption. >D
What dairy industry is here? What are you talking about? Here there are only people sharing their personal experiences. Heck, I've been attacked in the past by Weston Price devotees for not being sufficiently pro-dairy.
-
@ Troll
Sure, there a huge difference between raw and cooked, and the same between raw and cooked / pasteurized dairy. Now you're eating all raw, don't you? Have you eaten all raw without dairy for a period long enough for your immune system to get out of tolerance and for the detox symptoms the be almost unnoticeable? At least about two years?
-
Well, at least we agree that raw butter is less "junk" than margarine! ;D
Use whatever terms you wish. I'm not concerned about semantics like "healthy" vs. "clean". One minor caveat--"clean" is sufficiently vague that it better enables BSing. I've seen vegans misuse the term. Luckily, you stick mainly to real world experience, Francois, so I don't see that as a concern in this case.
By “clean” I meant not heated, without grain and junk feeding, etc.
As for taste, raw Zamorano sheep cheese is one of the best tasting foods I've tried (for my tastes, of course, not everyone likes it). Too expensive to eat regularly, though, and I seem to get even better benefits from eating cheap suet and marrow, though they don't taste as good to me.
Do you consider cheese as paleo?
What is your evidence for this? What predator refuses to eat the milk in a full udder? I've seen videos of lions and hyenas consuming whole carcasses of small animals, bones and all. They didn't spit out any milk. Jackals and even feral hogs reportedly do this.
What dairy industry is here? What are you talking about? Here there are only people sharing their personal experiences. Heck, I've been attacked in the past by Weston Price devotees for not being sufficiently pro-dairy.
Is there much milk in a wild female udder? Bruno Comby tried hard by several different means to extract some milk from a mistakenly killed deer which was breast feeding her offspring, but he failed to get any. He said milk is produced just in time, there’s no milk stored. He might have lied, I don’t know. Our domestic cows and goats are a different case, of course.
I meant the dairy industry "here in Europe".
-
WHat do you guys think about the studies showing raw eggs to have only a 50% absorption rate, with cooked eggs at 98%?
-
@ Troll
Sure, there a huge difference between raw and cooked, and the same between raw and cooked / pasteurized dairy. Now you're eating all raw, don't you? Have you eaten all raw without dairy for a period long enough for your immune system to get out of tolerance and for the detox symptoms the be almost unnoticeable? At least about two years?
My first year was dairy free because I had no source. Then I did a couple months on cow milk and it didnt seem to good. Then I went back to no dairy for a few months and then I tried goat milk only and felt great, still use cow butter cheese and sour cream though.
-
WHat do you guys think about the studies showing raw eggs to have only a 50% absorption rate, with cooked eggs at 98%?
i think that it just shows how meaningless studies really are. Only my own experience counts for me.
-
By “clean” I meant not heated, without grain and junk feeding, etc.
If that's what you mean, why not say it?
Do you consider cheese as paleo?
All cheese? No.
Is there much milk in a wild female udder? Bruno Comby tried hard...
Please remember, you said "no wild animal." My guess is that you don't consider Bruno Comby a "wild animal", or do you? :o
I meant the dairy industry "here in Europe".
They aren't here, so they are no concern here.
WHat do you guys think about the studies showing raw eggs to have only a 50% absorption rate, with cooked eggs at 98%?
I say try raw eggs and cooked eggs and see which you feel better after.
-
Iguana, I don't understand this 'spontaneous infections' you mention... I never had any, nor do I hear about them in other raw milk consuming circles. But then when one wants to believe in a new and wonderful food, 'we' can forget or overlook minor difficulties. But more on the spontaneous infections,, if one is cleansing or eliminating by eating raw proteins, those old damaged molecules will be in the blood, lymph and stools etc, and my guess is there would be a hightened or taxed or overwhelmed immune system, thus a potential for bacteria and virus's to feed on those molecules before being eliminated from the body. This seems obvious to me,,, and not to you?
-
WHat do you guys think about the studies showing raw eggs to have only a 50% absorption rate, with cooked eggs at 98%?
Cooked eggs typically give me serious indigestion. Raw do not.
-
I say try raw eggs and cooked eggs and see which you feel better after.
I feel fine after raw eggs. However after eliminating eggs on a trial period I'd say I do better without eggs.
-
gotta find eggs where they're not eating grain, and have plenty of bugs and greens to eat,,, to rule them out.
-
I feel fine after raw eggs. However after eliminating eggs on a trial period I'd say I do better without eggs.
That's certainly a third option--raw vs. cooked vs. none at all. I've tested all three myself (and various types and sources of eggs) and find I do best by including raw eggs in my diet. Glad you found something that works for you through self-testing.
-
gotta find eggs where they're not eating grain, and have plenty of bugs and greens to eat,,, to rule them out.
True. I've been eating WF pastured and free range eggs, likely not the highest quality. I could get them from Miller's which has fantastic soy free eggs.
-
Use whatever terms you wish. I'm not concerned about semantics like "healthy" vs. "clean".
Phil, this isn’t a semantic matter! It is a complete paradigm shift!
What is your evidence for this? What predator refuses to eat the milk in a full udder? I've seen videos of lions and hyenas consuming whole carcasses of small animals, bones and all. They didn't spit out any milk. Jackals and even feral hogs reportedly do this.
I finally found the post of Bruno Comby about his experiment trying to get the milk from the breast of a freshly killed lactating mammal.
http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A2=ind9704&L=RAW-FOOD&P=R1210&1=RAW-FOOD&9=A&I=-3&J=on&X=09D7231FD80331D8BF&Y=dovatf%40bluewin.ch&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4 (http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A2=ind9704&L=RAW-FOOD&P=R1210&1=RAW-FOOD&9=A&I=-3&J=on&X=09D7231FD80331D8BF&Y=dovatf%40bluewin.ch&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4)
I remember visiting Eric Billon in the early 90's, an instinctive MD who
was then living in Quebec (he now moved back to Martinique with his
family). He had gone dear-hunting in a totally virgin inhabited island
in the estuary of the St Laurent River estuary with a few instinctive
friends), a famous canadian hunting spot. When they came home from their
hunting-trip, they brought back a female-dear that they had shot on that
afternoon. Just after shooting her, they had noticed a baby-dear
standing close by, very young, still breast-fed. When they told me the
story, I felt sorry for the baby-dear, who will probably not have
survived without his feeding-mother (he was scared and ran away when his
mother was shot). But I decided to take profit of the situation for a
unique scientific test. Would it be possible to drink the milk from
mother-dear after its death ? That was the the milk from the breast of a
freshly killed lactating mammal. It was just a few hours after
mother-dear had been shot and the temperature was moderately cold on
that day (5-10°C), therefore the body was in a very good state of
conservation.
I first noticed that the milk glands were slightly swollen, which is
normal and an indication that mother-dear was indeed breast-feeding her
infant. Then I put my mouth on dead-mother-dear's breast and sucked hard
for the milk to see how it would taste and how my body would react. To
my surprise, absolutely no milk was available however powerful the
succion force. Not even one drop of milk available ! I then tried
another more radical way and dissected several of those small breasts
one after another with a knife (note that the use of a knife in itself
is already artificial). By ripping apart the tissues and pressing them
real hard, I could hardly obtain more than a few drops of whitish-redish
juice from the whole animal, not more than you would obtain by pressing
a solid fresh steack. Those few drops didn't even taste like milk at all
(more like pressed meat or blood).
The conclusion of this experiment clearly was that before our human
ancestors started raising cattle at the early neolithic period (more or
less 8-10 000 years ago), they probably NEVER had access to another
species' milk. The live animal won't let you suck it. The dead animal
doesn't have any milk available. The milk of mammals is secreted "au fur
et à mesure" only when the baby mammal sucks the breast. No milk
stocks-ed in advance. Cows with 50 liters of milk balancing under their
belly, as we can see in every farm nowadays has be obtained only
recently through artificial food given to the animals and selection of
the cows giving the greatest amount of milk.
If that's what you mean, why not say it?
Sorry about that.
All cheese? No.
Not all but some?? What kinds of cheese do you think were available in Paleolithic times?
I say try raw eggs and cooked eggs and see which you feel better after.
What is such an experiment meant to prove?
Iguana, I don't understand this 'spontaneous infections' you mention... I never had any, nor do I hear about them in other raw milk consuming circles. But then when one wants to believe in a new and wonderful food, 'we' can forget or overlook minor difficulties. But more on the spontaneous infections,, if one is cleansing or eliminating by eating raw proteins, those old damaged molecules will be in the blood, lymph and stools etc, and my guess is there would be a hightened or taxed or overwhelmed immune system, thus a potential for bacteria and virus's to feed on those molecules before being eliminated from the body. This seems obvious to me,,, and not to you?
GCB mentions that during the alternating periods in which they drank milk, even from their own goat, small wounds got often infected and himself even had (twice, if I remember correctly) spontaneous infections in one arm. On the contrary, when we eat 100% raw paleo, even serious wounds never get infected.
Your hypothesis seems plausible. But if there’s no way to get any milk from a wild animal, as the above post of Bruno Comby suggests, then it would be odd and the most probable explanation is opposite.
True. I've been eating WF pastured and free range eggs, likely not the highest quality. I could get them from Miller's which has fantastic soy free eggs.
They should be wheat free and heated stuff free as well! Try mine, I’ve got plenty this time of the year!
-
Phil, this isn’t a semantic matter! It is a complete paradigm shift!
Yes, it is a bit more than semantics, for I find the term "healthy" more understandable than "clean," which I've seen interpreted many different ways (most commonly to mean vegan or raw vegan as assumed to be optimally healthy diets). Clean is such a vague and differently-used term that I don't know what paradigm you are trying to communicate with it.
I finally found the post of Bruno Comby about his experiment trying to get the milk from the breast of a freshly killed lactating mammal.
My point was that I was discussing wild predators like lions, hyenas, jackals and feral hogs, consuming whole carcasses of small animals, including the milk. Bruno Comby is not a wild predator, he is a domesticated human. He is also a single individual. His failure is not proof. A single counter-example would disprove his claim. I've seen a couple such reports myself. I'll try to find one of them. Of course, we're not talking huge amounts of milk here, but that doesn't mean that milk was never consumed during the Paleolithic.
What kinds of cheese do you think were available in Paleolithic times?
I was hoping to avoid getting into a debate over what "Paleo" means. Suffice it to say for now that "foods that were available in Paleolithic times" is not my definition of Paleo. Is that really your definition?
What is such an experiment meant to prove?
It wasn't meant to "prove" anything. It was in response to a question about raw vs. cooked eggs. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to make it.
small wounds got often infected and himself even had (twice, if I remember correctly) spontaneous infections
I've never experienced this, not even in the days I was consuming pasteurized skim milk, the worst of the worst. In fact, I've never had an infected wound in my life, despite getting wounds. I eventually even stopped bothering to dig out deep splinters, as I noticed that they came out on their own eventually and I never got an infection. Did GCB have an immune system issue?
-
Yes, it is a bit more than semantics, for I find the term "healthy" more understandable than "clean," which I've seen interpreted many different ways (most commonly to mean vegan or raw vegan as assumed to be optimally healthy diets). Clean is such a vague and differently-used term that I don't know what paradigm you are trying to communicate with it.
Ther term « clean » is probably unwise. I told you, by “clean” I meant not heated, without grain and junk feeding, etc. Anyway the words “healthy food” are meaningless if used to say that a food is beneficial for the health of the one consuming it. It should be totally abandoned in such use since a same stuff can be beneficial for someone at a given time and in the suitable amount, harmful in an excessive amount or another day, and noxious to someone else in any amount.
My point was that I was discussing wild predators like lions, hyenas, jackals and feral hogs, consuming whole carcasses of small animals, including the milk. Bruno Comby is not a wild predator, he is a domesticated human. He is also a single individual. His failure is not proof. A single counter-example would disprove his claim. I've seen a couple such reports myself. I'll try to find one of them. Of course, we're not talking huge amounts of milk here, but that doesn't mean that milk was never consumed during the Paleolithic.
Yes, his failure is not prove. Miles (one of the several contributors who suddenly disappeared) posted a video where we can see few centiliters of milk sipping out from a killed wild animal. Even if there is perhaps sometimes a tiny amount of milk in a wild mammal udder, and even if predators such as lions, hyenas, jackals and feral hogs would maybe indifferently swallow that little bit of milk along with the flesh, it doesn’t mean that hominids would have done that or were even able to do it.
I thought it was widely admitted by every sensible person that milk and dairy are typically Neolithic foods like cereal grains. But this raw paleo forum happens to be more and more attended by milk drinkers and dairy proponents, to the point that I get assaulted from all sides each time I remind that milk is not more a Paleolithic food than grain. It begins to take too much of my time to dutifully answer to all these attacks. Therefore, I’m considering to ask GS to remove me from the moderators list because I feel less and less at home in a forum that should be renamed “Raw Neolithic Forum”.
Cheers
François
-
It begins to take too much of my time to dutifully answer to all these attacks. Therefore, I’m considering to ask GS to remove me from the moderators list because I feel less and less at home in a forum that should be renamed “Raw Neolithic Forum”.
I hope you don't do that, Francois, as I find your posts to be some of the best here. I wasn't trying to attack you or suggest that this be changed to a Neolithic forum.
I actually was originally drawn to this forum in part because it was one of the few that didn't push dairy (though it did have a dairy section) and felt welcoming to a nondairy meat eater like myself at the time, and I had been turned off by the unpolite and unscientific way that some dairy proponents attacked Loren Cordain, Ray Audette, myself and other nondairy Paleo dieters at forums and blogs like the PALEODIET and PALEOFOOD listservs and ZIOH. Even here some plant-oriented troll criticized my diet in the past as not truly Paleo or facultatively carnivorous because I wasn't eating dairy at the time, IIRC.
Since then, I've found some of the pro-dairy evidence and points shared here and elsewhere persuasive, and growing new scientific evidence has been found that seems to show dairy in a more positive light, and some of my experiments with dairy foods have gone pretty well so far (albeit a minority), plus dairy was never one of my worst foods. Even pasteurized dairy never had as negative effects on me as gluten grains. I'm still also open to your counter-arguments and try to remain always open-minded to good evidence.
What if it turns out there is a sense in which some raw dairy foods might be considered not "junk", maybe even "Paleo," depending on one's definition of that term? If you find that notion too upsetting to consider, I won't pursue it with you further.
-
I hope you don't do that, Francois, as I find your posts to be some of the best here. I wasn't trying to attack you or suggest that this be changed to a Neolithic forum.
Thank you. No, I won’t do it right now and it wouldn’t be because of you but rather because of a general and growing trend here. Anyway I’ll be very busy from now until the months to come and won’t be able to post much.
What if it turns out there is a sense in which some raw dairy foods might be considered not "junk", maybe even "Paleo," depending on one's definition of that term? If you find that notion too upsetting to consider, I won't pursue it with you further.
I’m curious how dairy could be considered “paleo”. Even if tiny amounts of milk were perhaps sporadically available to hominids during the Paleolithic era, then what? We don’t consider grilled food as raw because some food might have been naturally grilled on the lava after a volcanic eruption! We don’t consider wheat as paleo because a little bit of grain from wild grasses was certainly already available during the Paleolithic!
-
maybe theres no such hing as paleo. Maybe civilization has been around for millions of years and maybe its a lie that sumeria is the first civilization. Maybe humans have been doing raw dairy for millions of years?
-
Maybe, maybe... But then humans would have been cooking for millions of years too and we would be well adapted to cooked food, so it would be senseless to eat raw.
That said, I don't dispute the fact that there have certainly been a few civilizations before Sumeria, some probably still unknown. On the other hand, there are still some hunters-gatherers today who never drink milk. Before WW II, most South-East Asians and Pacific Islanders never drank milk either.
-
What if raw fermented milk requires little adaptation because it's one of the natural food substances (along with honey and others), what if the microbes in the RF milk and in our guts can do much of the digesting for us, what if the fat fraction (ie raw butter) doesn't happen to trigger any harm or even provide benefits in most people, what if any toxins in milk or fractions of it have beneficial hormetic effects in limited amounts, the way plant toxins may? Would it still not be Paleo just because it wasn't a staple food in the past? And if dairy is not Paleo because it wasn't a staple in the past, then what of almonds, if it's true as reported that they were too toxic to eat as staples before they were domesticated? If almonds are Paleo because they are akin to other tree nuts that were staple foods, then what if butter is similarly akin to animal body fat? These questions don't seem to have been answered with finality one way or the other, so I don't understand how we can rule all dairy out as non-Paleo at this point, nor how some "Paleos" can rule out other controversial foods as nonPaleo, such as honey as "sugar," fruits as "tree candy," tubers as too starchy and turning into sugar in our bodies or as not preferred enough in Paleo days to have been staples that we could have adapted to, etc., when the picture is less than clear about those and other claims too.
-
I just don't see why this discussion keeps on coming up. To me raw paleo simply means
A. Raw; Unadulterated pure food. Not processed in any way.
B. Paleo. Food that was around in paleo times.
Milk most definitely was around in paleo times! Maybe we did and maybe we didn't eat it, some did some didn't. But is was there. As a result some can and some cannot tolerate it. Same with other foods. Some can tolerate honey some can't etc.
If raw paleo milk (raw and from a animal on a natural diet) suits you, fine use it. If not don't. Simple..?
The notion that our instincts work for raw meat but not raw dairy is IMO absurd. Our instincts simple evaluate input from our senses, they react to chemical substances. Sure cooking chemically alters those compounds thus there the instincts are thrown of. If raw, milk is no different than meat, suet, liver etc just different combinations of the same natural compounds. Why would our instincts be able to evaluate our mothers milk but not that of a cow? After all they can evaluate the flesh of the cow as well.
Anyways have fun debating this... You know you love it ;)
-
maybe theres no such hing as paleo. Maybe civilization has been around for millions of years and maybe its a lie that sumeria is the first civilization. Maybe humans have been doing raw dairy for millions of years?
I think you are mixing the various definitions of civilization. Sumaria is qualified as the first civilization only under the most restrictive use of the word.
-
Troll, Iguana, PP, HIR,
I agree with your last four posts. Each one sheds a bit of light on things that I believe to be true. I do not think the Sumerians were the first just because no others have been found. There are other clues around that people do not wish to accept because it blows up their castles made of sand, like the walls off Bermuda, etc. Down through history many libraries have been burned including Alexandria etc. Nazis did it. George Bush would have liked to do it except that he would have put his wife out of work. LOL
The Japanese never ate beef till recently and I believe a lot of places in the world that are veges or close to it have simply run out of meat, because whether everyone here on this site is in complete denial or not, just because raw meat is a healthy choice, IMO, does not mean that if everyone on earth could suddenly start on our diet that there would be enough meat to go around. Naturally the world's food focus would change and adjust to a certain degree.
However having said that if everyone truly did go to raw meat, I believe based on my own experience that they would eat considerably less and things like fridges and stoves would become relics along with the massive amounts of energy required to power them. Also women (typically) would be freed up from the necessity of food preparations allowing them to be able to do other things.
Grain production would be diverted to feeding animals, but I suspect there would be a shortage of meat, especially in some areas of the world with a large population.
-
Milk most definitely was around in paleo times! Maybe we did and maybe we didn't eat it, some did some didn't. But is was there.
Yes it was there, produced just in time by lactating females for their offspring exclusively. Only young ones drank milk, and only the milk of their mother – baring very rare exceptional cases. Every milk is species specific, its composition being expressly adapted to the offspring of that particular species and their specific needs. No adult could drink milk, either from a female of its own species nor from a female of another species.
Please try to approach a wild lactating female and go to suck some milk from her. Tell us when you succeed. Better if someone can take a photo of you drinking the milk straight from a deer or wild boar in a forest. You’ll get world famous very quickly.
Or if you happen to kill her, see if you can get any milk at all while trying to do better than Bruno Comby.
(http://www.hdwallpapersarena.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/wallpapers_deer_1024x768252812529.jpg)
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/kokototo/kokototo1211/kokototo121100007/16261674-little-giraffe-drinking-milk-with-hunger.jpg)
(http://mindjourney1962.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/milking-cow.jpg)
The notion that our instincts work for raw meat but not raw dairy is IMO absurd. Our instincts simple evaluate input from our senses, they react to chemical substances.
It doesn’t seem to be that simple. The chemical substances must be in organic, unprocessed natural form and have been available in the environment of our origins. That’s why our instinct doesn’t work with ethylene-glycol, white refined sugar and milk from other animals species.
Sure cooking chemically alters those compounds thus there the instincts are thrown of. If raw, milk is no different than meat, suet, liver etc just different combinations of the same natural compounds. Why would our instincts be able to evaluate our mothers milk but not that of a cow? After all they can evaluate the flesh of the cow as well.
Because no human could ever drink the milk of a cow (supposing such animal existed, which is not the case) before we domesticated some wild ancestor about 8000 years ago. There’s already a problem with “cow meat” because such cows are not found in nature: they are animals we have selected over hundreds of generations. Thus, it appeared that our instinct doesn’t evaluate entirely correctly the flesh of a cow.
-
I was actually thinking maybe eggs are like dairy. The inside of an egg is designed to be the nourishment for a developing chick. The function of an egg seems to be very similar to that of milk.
-
The big difference is that eggs are easier to gather than milk!
Indeed, and I've read accounts saying that prairie bird eggs were so plentiful, in season, and so easy to obtain (the nests were on the ground), that the Lakota people left most of the egg-gathering to little children (with at least one chaperon, of course).
-
The notion that our instincts work for raw meat but not raw dairy is IMO absurd.
Well said. It is a natural raw food substance that our alliesthetic instincts should work with, if GCB is correct about food instincts. :)
The Japanese never ate beef till recently
Are you talking just about bovines, or red meat in general and pork, etc.? Have you heard about the ancient Jomon, Ainu and Yayoi meat-eating peoples, from whom most of today's Japanese descend? "The Jomon period (... Jomon jidai?) is the time in Prehistoric Japan from about 14,000 BC[1][2] to about 300 BC, when Japan was inhabited by a hunter-gatherer culture which reached a considerable degree of sedentism and cultural complexity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon_people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon_people)
"The main concern of Jomon people was the hunting of larger game such as deer (Cervus sp.) and wild boai (Sus sp.). This view is supported by the evidence that these are dominant species in midden deposits of Jomon sites and their nutritional value per individual is much higher than the other species (e.g., K. Hayashi, 1971; Nishimoto, 1978)." http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_db/Bulletin/no27/no27006.html (http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_db/Bulletin/no27/no27006.html)
"The Ainu have been depicted as "mysterious proto-Caucasians" unrelated to Japanese people. However, DNA research shows that Ainu are the direct descendants of the Jomon, the ancient people who created Japan's first culture and one of the world's oldest extant potteries. This means that the Ainu and present-day Japanese are biologically related." http://www.japanfocus.org/-Chisato__Kitty_-Dubreuil/2589 (http://www.japanfocus.org/-Chisato__Kitty_-Dubreuil/2589)
"The Ainu ... also called Aynu, Aino ..., and in historical texts Ezo ..., are an indigenous people in Japan (Hokkaido) and Russia (Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands). ... The Ainu were a society of hunter-gatherers, who lived mainly by hunting and fishing, and the people followed a religion based on phenomena of nature.[9 NOVA Online – Island of the Spirits – Origins of the Ainu". Retrieved on May 8, 2008.]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people#Hunting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people#Hunting)
Genetic kinship found between Ainu and native Okinawans, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201211010059 (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201211010059)
"the Yayoi, intermarried with the native Jomon people on Honshu and Kyushu. Most people in Japan today carry the genetic fingerprints of both groups. However, characteristics of the original Jomon genome are more prevalent in the Ainu and native Okinawans."
"Apart from rice, however, pigs and dogs also entered Japan, and so did the habit of using them for food [by the Yayoi]." http://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/english/publication/titles/titles_pdf/070006.pdf (http://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/english/publication/titles/titles_pdf/070006.pdf)
Even if you're just talking about bovines, does anyone think that the kobe beef that were introduced into Japan in the 2nd century AD were never eaten when they could no longer plow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_beef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_beef)
and I believe a lot of places in the world that are veges or close to it
In "vege" diets, are you including dairy, honey, insects, fungi and algae (none of which are truly plants)?
Please try to approach a wild lactating female and go to suck some milk from her.
That's not how it's done. Voila: :D
Adults consuming milk of wild mammals among HGs, traditional pastoralists, mature domesticated bulls, oxpeckers and feral cats:
> From The Old Way: A Story of the First People, by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, page 23:
"When I got there, the mother gemsbok and her calf were dead and the leopard had run away. ... The mother had milk in her udder, which had four teats like goats' teats, all covered with hair, two large teats in front and two small teats behind. The two men milked her, stroking the milk veins in the bag, milking a squirt into their palm and licking it off. The gemsbok, lying on her side with one hind leg lightly raised, was so big that both men could squat below the leg to milk her. I tasted some milk, which was strong and gamey, also harsh and salty, very different from the mild, sweet milk of cows. Then the two men rolled her on her back, skinned and opened her belly, then opened the rumen. ...."
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche:) "The Comanches sometimes ate raw meat, especially raw liver flavored with gall. They also drank the milk from the slashed udders of buffalo, deer, and elk. Among their delicacies was the curdled milk from the stomachs of suckling buffalo calves, and they also enjoyed buffalo tripe, or stomachs."
> This video includes footage of wild horses being rounded up and milked and the milk fermented and then consumed by Mongolians:
Nomadic life: Mongolian horse herders, BBC Human Planet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/human-planet-nomadic-life-mongolian-horse-herders/11958.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/human-planet-nomadic-life-mongolian-horse-herders/11958.html)
> Interspecies nursing--wild animals sometimes adopt and suckle the offspring of other species, albeit rarely and usually the adopted species is domesticated:
"ONE SUMMER DAY on Sanibel Island, Florida, a female raccoon led her young out of a patch of woods toward a large dumpster parked behind a resort hotel. Following her were three healthy-looking young raccoons and, bringing up the rear, one tabby kitten. Ducking under a fence around the dumpster, this unorthodox family stuck together long after it had joined a couple dozen other cats and raccoons that were feeding on the bounty of edible garbage there. ...
And adoption is not just a quirk among human beings and the occasional eccentric raccoon. From gulls, geese and bats to seals, coyotes and dolphins, all kinds of creatures have been known to take in and raise another animal's young. According to Eva Jablonka, an evolutionary biologist at Tel-Aviv University who describes the behavior in the book Animal Traditions, adoption "is certainly more common than previously thought." She and her coauthor, zoologist Eytan Avital, report that several hundred bird and mammal species at least occasionally adopt. ...
Even more difficult to explain is why an animal--such as that Sanibel Island raccoon--would adopt the offspring of a different species. Boness and Brown both suggest that the raccoon may have taken in the kitten by mistake while her own babies were very young. In captivity, dogs with young puppies have been induced to suckle cats, and cats have nursed rats. Mothers in these experiments accepted the alien offspring before their own young were old enough to move around, the point at which powerful recognition systems usually kick in.
Still, it's hard to interpret such adoptions as anything other than reproductive bloopers. According to Jablonka, biologists understand very little about cross-species adoptions in the wild. "There are few reports of this behavior," she says, "and I suspect its occurrence is underestimated."
Sometimes, when the urge to nurture overwhelms, animal parents can end up in bizarre situations. In the mid-1970s, a biologist working in Alaska observed a pair of arctic loons, which had lost their own chicks, raising five spectacled eider ducklings that might otherwise have made a decent lunch. More recently, a lioness in Kenya's Samburu National Park took in a newborn Beisa oryx--normally a prey species--then attempted to adopt a second baby oryx after game wardens took away the first." (Sharon Levy, Parenting Paradox, NATIONAL WILDLIFE MAGAZINE, Aug/Sep 2002, https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/841c6ff3a204c18e852572c200586258?OpenDocument (https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/841c6ff3a204c18e852572c200586258?OpenDocument))
> "I have witnessed adult bulls "robbing" milk from lactating cows in a mixed herd." - Laura, http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/70479.html (http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/70479.html)
> Feral cats steal milk from northern elephant seals
by Juan Pablo Gallo-Reynoso and Charles Leo Ortiz, 2010, http://www.academia.edu/890943/Feral_cats_steal_milk_from_northern_elephant_seals (http://www.academia.edu/890943/Feral_cats_steal_milk_from_northern_elephant_seals)
"We have found that feral cats are also drinking elephant seal’s milk, stealing it directly from the teats of nursing females. The amount of energy obtained this way might be significant for feral cats in the northern elephant seal rookeries on the island."
The chemical substances must be in organic, unprocessed natural form and have been available in the environment of our origins.
All that is true of raw milk from wild animals.
Plus, lots of folks here and elsewhere report good results from the best forms of dairy, with notable rare exceptions, such as yourself and Tyler. No doubt if Tyler were available, he would castigate us for doing so and insult us with straw man claims of noble savagery and such, but the evidence is sufficiently compelling to justify keeping an open mind about raw dairy. It's not a proven case, by any means, but the accumulating evidence is increasingly difficult to ignore.
Of course, to each his own and if dairy doesn't suit you, then don't eat it. Live and let live. For me, only butter, sheep cheese and sheep yogurt seem tolerable so far, which is much less than what other folks report tolerating or even thriving on. It pains me some to have to admit that the evidence is pointing to WAPF fanatics being more right than wrong about raw dairy.
-
to add to Bruno's experience... Having had goats myself,, if you get to the barn before the herd wakes up, and can milk the mother before the kids suckle/feed in the morning, there's lots of milk. Get two minutes too late and there's nothing to milk out. My guess is that's what Bruno experienced. If this is 'universally true,, paleo hunters would have to kill the mother at first light, or find a mother who's young had just previously died,, which can happen often.
-
I find that I enjoy drinking my own piss more than I enjoy drinking Raw Eggs. Guess I am just a freak.
-
The big difference is that eggs are easier to gather than milk!
Except that there would be no wild animals that would produce the ridiculous amount of eggs that a modern hen will produce and they would not be as large in size. Additionally the eggs would not likely be on the ground or in an easy to reach place.
-
The chemical substances must be in organic, unprocessed natural form
what a true statement. my raw dairy is currently in organic raw unprocessed form. My instincts re telling me to go drink some right now.
-
Yes it was there, produced just in time by lactating females for their offspring exclusively. Only young ones drank milk, and only the milk of their mother – baring very rare exceptional cases. Every milk is species specific, its composition being expressly adapted to the offspring of that particular species and their specific needs. No adult could drink milk, either from a female of its own species nor from a female of another species.
That sounds like the vegetarian rant about how we don't have a short intestine, no sharp incisors, yada yada, and just as intelligent.
I suppose we shouldn't eat the flesh of another animals, as it is not of our species. ;D
-
I suppose we shouldn't eat the flesh of another animals, as it is not of our species. ;D
That's what I thought to. Noble savages indeed! we should all be instinctive cannibals. ;D ;D ;D
No worries friend I'll only eat you when my instincts tell me to :D
-
African ostrich eggs were both large and on the ground, and still are. They were and are also used for water storage (much less commonly today, of course).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Struthio_camelus_-_strus_%282%29.JPG/800px-Struthio_camelus_-_strus_%282%29.JPG)
Bushmen making an omelet with ostrich eggs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhpK9MGj5PI#ws)
The bushman in this video says the ostrich egg = 24 chicken eggs.
-
Imagine sucking one of those out of the shell. Quite a meal.
-
PP,
Nice vid thanks.
African ostrich eggs were both large and on the ground, and still are. They were and are also used for water storage (much less commonly today, of course).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Struthio_camelus_-_strus_%282%29.JPG/800px-Struthio_camelus_-_strus_%282%29.JPG)
Bushmen making an omelet with ostrich eggs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhpK9MGj5PI#ws)
The bushman in this video says the ostrich egg = 24 chicken eggs.
Not a lot of them thar Ostrich eggs in these here hills.
-
Glad to be of service, Raw-Al. According to DNA research, all of today's humans have at least some DNA that traces back to African Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, and there is evidence that they not only ate ostrich eggs, but eventually started making canteens, water cache storage containers and jewelry out of them, which some still do today:
Making Beads Bushman Village Namibia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dN6Kh57a_0#)
Ostrich eggs seem to be one of the single most useful items in human Paleo history. They were easy to obtain, contained plenty of food and were packed with nutrients. Plus, if they wanted to, the hunters could also kill the ostriches and eat them as well. I've tried ostrich meat and it's a very tasty red meat.
Ground-nest birds like the prairie chicken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Prairie_Chicken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Prairie_Chicken)) were reportedly quite plentiful in the USA prior to European colonization. Their eggs were so easy to obtain that gathering eggs was a task that supervised little children were given by Plains Indians. The prairie chicken was so important that a dance was modeled on the mating dance of the bird: Native American Indian Pow wow - Men Chicken Dancing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY2bvOPiy08#)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5194/7435499476_0b5f375112_z.jpg)
Greater prairie chicken nest with eggs
Ground-nesting birds are also indigenous to Eurasia, such as partridges: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Perdix_perdix_Sri_Mesh.jpg/170px-Perdix_perdix_Sri_Mesh.jpg)
Plus, ground-nest-making birds were far more plentiful during the Paleolithic than today. We can't judge Paleo times based on how things are now.
As Francois pointed out, there were also turtle eggs in Paleo days and let's not forget the eggs of other reptiles and fish.
-
Nice Phil, thanks.
Initially when I lived in Northern Canada, I would see nothing when in the woods, while everyone else would see (sign) tracks, birds, animals, you name it. Then gradually, just like with those pictures that you stare at for awhile and suddenly you see a fish or an airplane etc. I started seeing all kinds of things also. It's quite amazing.
I remember the locals saying that people would go to the fishing areas with very expensive rods and equipment, after travelling from half a continent away and sometimes catch nothing, while the local Indians would go out with a bit of string wrapped around a Coke can and catch huge fish in no time at all. It's not magic, just knowing.
-
I remember the locals saying that people would go to the fishing areas with very expensive rods and equipment, after travelling from half a continent away and sometimes catch nothing, while the local Indians would go out with a bit of string wrapped around a Coke can and catch huge fish in no time at all. It's not magic, just knowing.
Yup, that's my sort of approach and thinking too. I fish for easy-catching fish that I like the taste of, using just a cheapass fishing pole and worms or lures, often just dropping the line down, and with either just myself or a canoe or rowboat to take me to the fish. My favorite fish are yellow lake perch about 8-10 inches long. Smaller ones don't have much meat and bigger ones don't taste as good.
I tend to catch more fish than the guys with expensive bass boats who travel far, burn lots of fuel and are only looking to catch big bass and then throw them back. Come to think of it, in the past four years or so I think I've only seen them catch one or two fish., which they threw back. I saw a video documentary about Amazon Indians and one of said he couldn't understand why modern people fish, throw the fish back, and then drive to a supermarket and buy fish.
Gathering eggs used to be easy too, and even today isn't that hard in some parts. I saw a video once of Lakota children not long ago gathering prairie chicken eggs with their mother. They carried baskets, walked out a ways onto the prairie, picked up the eggs, filling their baskets in no time, and walked home.
-
so you eat lake caught fish? I heard this wasnt safe.
-
so you eat lake caught fish? I heard this wasnt safe.
Where did you hear that?
-
a lot of people on this board say theres more parasites and stuff in lake fish. Also the lakes are supposed to be a lot more polluted.
i should i heard it not safe to eat RAW
-
Fish from lakes and rivers haven't killed me yet after over 4 decades of occasionally eating fish from lakes and rivers (albeit mostly cooked). The rumors tend to come from fears about mercury or parasites. Most of the fish I eat are small and therefore relatively low in mercury and I'm not afraid of the parasites that are common in fish in my area.
There is also more pollution in general in lakes than rivers. The bay and river I usually fish in do have some pollution, but where I fish is not the worst parts and overall they're not that bad. A small amount of mercury or other pollution can even be hormetically (http://tinyurl.com/b4axwfn) beneficial, maybe especially when one has sufficient selenium and other factors to help with the detoxification process. I think Aajonus and Tyler may have written something along those lines in the past.
Plus, I've seen reasons proposed for not eating every food on the planet. I've got to eat something.
However, if you fear eating fish from lakes or rivers, then I wouldn't advise eating them, unless you think it might help you overcome the fear, as the fear itself could harm you. Hormesis reportedly works best when it is voluntary and a person feels good about doing it: http://gettingstronger.org/2011/09/voluntary-stress/ (http://gettingstronger.org/2011/09/voluntary-stress/)
-
so am I correct in that you eat fish you caught in rivers raw and not cooked ?
-
Both raw and cooked.
-
So both you and raw al eat the lake fish raw with no problems?
If so this will be great for me. I have access lots of delicious looking lake caught fish.
-
Yup, none yet. Of course, your lake and fish are not necessarily the same.
-
i have access to a lake on which no gas powered boats or vehicles of any kind are allowed. Only electric.
Would this indicate a clean lake or should I check other things?
-
It suggests it. If you have seen anyone fishing, that is another suggestion. You could also ask someone who knows the lake or search the Internet for info on the lake, until you feel comfortable about it.
-
Quote from: HIT_it_RAW on May 16, 2013, 10:24:12 PM
The notion that our instincts work for raw meat but not raw dairy is IMO absurd.
Well said. It is a natural raw food substance that our alliesthetic instincts should work with, if GCB is correct about food instincts. :)
Then our alliesthetic instincts should work fine as well with grilled or heated food because there's always been sometimes food grilled on volcanic lava, by a wildfire ignited by a lightning, or heated on a rock in the sun. The fact that a little bit of milk could sometimes be found in nature doesn't mean that we are well adapted to dairy.
Another point: the alliesthetic instinct is not an “all or nothing” function. It works also to a certain extend with cooked food, mixed food, dairy. But not well enough to ensure a proper balance.
Only the experience can tell and so far all experiments done in Switzerland and France with the best raw milk from entirely grass fed cows, goats or sheep (AFAIK none of us has ever been able to get milk from a wild animal) have been a disaster. But the person must have been eating 100% raw paleo for a sufficiently long period (at least several months, perhaps a year or two) to allow a depart of tolerance. Otherwise nothing will happen in the short term.
Sorry for the late answer, I was busy moving to Portugal.
Cheers
François
-
Then our alliesthetic instincts should work fine as well with grilled or heated food because there's always been sometimes food grilled on volcanic lava, by a wildfire ignited by a lightning, or heated on a rock in the sun. The fact that a little bit of milk could sometimes be found in nature doesn't mean that we are well adapted to dairy.
Another point: the alliesthetic instinct is not an “all or nothing” function. It works also to a certain extend with cooked food, mixed food, dairy. But not well enough to ensure a proper balance.
Only the experience can tell and so far all experiments done in Switzerland and France with the best raw milk from entirely grass fed cows, goats or sheep (AFAIK none of us has ever been able to get milk from a wild animal) have been a disaster. But the person must have been eating 100% raw paleo for a sufficiently long period (at least several months, perhaps a year or two) to allow a depart of tolerance. Otherwise nothing will happen in the short term.
Sorry for the late answer, I was busy moving to Portugal.
Cheers
François
Nothing like experience to blow away silly theories and "science experiments".
My experience and that of quite a few friends that consume raw dairy is..... no problemo. I also know some people who do have problems with it. Just like all foods.
Cooked is another topic altogether.
-
I'm not speaking about "science experiments" but about experiences in real life with real persons. The "silly theory", as you call it, was devised following these experiences, to provide an explanation of what was observed in practice.
For the hundredth time, has anyone of the dairy promoters on this raw paleo forum been long enough without consuming any dairy to get out of tolerance before reintroducing it? Otherwise, as I just wrote in my above post, no problems will show up, at least in the short term.
Cooking is not at all a completely different topic: a majority of our ancestors had been cooking since a few hundreds thousands years while dairy consumption became common even more recently. Our pre-fire-mastery ancestors didn't have milk as a regular food, if they ever had any at all. We are on a raw paleo forum and paleonutrition excludes dairy as well as cereal grains. Otherwise, you'd have to redefine what a paleo diet means.
Cheers
-
For the hundredth time, has anyone of the dairy promoters on this raw paleo forum been long enough without consuming any dairy to get out of tolerance before reintroducing it? Otherwise, as I just wrote in my above post, no problems will show up, at least in the short term.
Cheers
I recently went quite awhile off of dairy when I moved and had to reconnect with a producer. I did not experience any untoward symptoms except when I bought some pasteurized dairy PD garbage which predictably started giving me all the symptoms of lactose intolerance.
This I knew from before as I had an enlarged prostate for years (presumably from PD as it stopped being problematic when I gave up PD) which was only 'fixed' when my friend used his Rife device. It is now operating as designed.
For me the problems show up fairly fast.
I know one woman who drinks some raw dairy (milk cheese yogurt) because she is breast feeding two children and she doesn't think she has enough milk without the dairy supplement. She doesn't particularly like it and she predictably has constant issues such as; phleghm and upper respiratory tract infections. These are issues that in Ayurveda are referred to as Kapha problems.
I have repeatedly suggested she go off of dairy or at the very least only have small amounts or have it with certain spices, which will make it more digestible, but like Kaphas everywhere, ;D she is a wee bit stubborn. Being a mother with two babes breastfeeding gives her the right to make up her own mind.
-
Only the experience can tell and so far all experiments done in Switzerland and France with the best raw milk from entirely grass fed cows, goats or sheep (AFAIK none of us has ever been able to get milk from a wild animal) have been a disaster.
Like all experiments there are always wild cards that are impossible to factor out completely. A better example would have been the Swiss people that Weston Price visited back about 100 years ago before the people were infested by the diets of outsiders...
Here is an excerpt from this page http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-up-reviews/nutrition-and-physical-degeneration (http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-up-reviews/nutrition-and-physical-degeneration) about the fifth paragraph.
"The diets of the healthy "primitives" Price studied were all very different: In the Swiss village where Price began his investigations, the inhabitants lived on rich dairy products--unpasteurized milk, butter, cream and cheese--dense rye bread, meat occasionally, bone broth soups and the few vegetables they could cultivate during the short summer months. The children never brushed their teeth--in fact their teeth were covered in green slime--but Price found that only about one percent of the teeth had any decay at all. The children went barefoot in frigid streams during weather that forced Dr. Price and his wife to wear heavy wool coats; nevertheless childhood illnesses were virtually nonexistent and there had never been a single case of TB in the village."
Another interesting section
"Price took samples of native foods home with him to Cleveland and studied them in his laboratory. He found that these diets contained at least four times the minerals as the American diet of his day. Price would undoubtedly find a greater discrepancy in the 1990s due to continual depletion of our soils through industrial farming practices. What's more, among traditional populations, grains and tubers were prepared in ways that increased vitamin content and made minerals more available--soaking, fermenting, sprouting and sour leavening.
It was when Price analyzed the fat soluble vitamins that he got a real surprise. The diets of healthy native groups contained at least ten times more vitamin A and vitamin D than the American diet of his day! These vitamins are found only in animal fats--butter, lard, egg yolks, fish oils and foods with fat-rich cellular membranes like liver and other organ meats, fish eggs and shell fish.
Price describes the fat soluble vitamins as "catalysts" or "activators" upon which the assimilation of all the other nutrients depended--protein, minerals and vitamins. In other words, without the dietary factors found in animal fats, all the other nutrients largely go to waste.
In Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price discusses another fat soluble vitamin that was a more powerful catalyst for nutrient absorption than vitamins A and D. He called it "Activator X". All the healthy groups Price studied had the X Factor in their diets. It could be found in certain special foods which these people considered sacred--cod liver oil, fish eggs, organ meats and the deep yellow Spring and Fall butter from cows eating rapidly growing green grass. When the snows melted and the cows could go up to the rich pastures above their village, the Swiss placed a bowl of such butter on the church altar and lit a wick in it. The Masai set fire to yellow fields so that new grass could grow for their cows. Hunter-gatherers always ate the organ meats of the game they killed--often raw. Liver was held to be sacred by many African tribes. The Eskimos and many Indian tribes put a very high value on fish eggs. Activator X is now believed to be the fat-soluble vitamin K2; read Chris Masterjohn's article to see how this 60-year mystery was finally solved."
I suggest reading the full article if you have the time.
-
Al, I’m Swiss myself and I spent most of my life in Lausanne, only a 100 km away from those valleys in Valais, which I know very well. An "instincto" good friend of mine is even living there. Yes, I believe those mountaineers had a healthier life than most people in the plains. Yes, raw dairy is better than pasteurized dairy. Yes, I believe children had almost no tooth decay and no TB there.
Then what? What about the health of elders, what about other diseases? What were they dying from? What would have been their health state if the had seafood, more meat and cempedaks ;) instead of dairy? Who knows? Did Price study all that? It’s impossible to know and to check nowadays what Price said because his study of those valleys' people seems to be the only one and AFAIK is not supported by other studies or statistics.
-
Al, I’m Swiss myself and I spent most of my life in Lausanne, only a 100 km away from those valleys in Valais, which I know very well. An "instincto" good friend of mine is even living there. Yes, I believe those mountaineers had a healthier life than most people in the plains. Yes, raw dairy is better than pasteurized dairy. Yes, I believe children had almost no tooth decay and no TB there.
Then what? What about the health of elders, what about other diseases? What were they dying from? What would have been their health state if the had seafood, more meat and cempedaks ;) instead of dairy? Who knows? Did Price studied all that? It’s impossible to know and to check nowadays what Price said because his study of those valleys' people seems to be the only one and AFAIK is not supported by other studies or statistics.
I don't think you can easily dismiss WP, however I am not suggesting people follow him. His observations were pretty clear and follow the same vein as other places in the world. I've been to places inside the Arctic Circle and seen the destruction of the native populations by us Honkies.
The way I see it, anybody in those communities who had problems with dairy etc simply died and so were out of the gene pool. Same is true with the Inuit etc. If you were unable to live on seal blubber you died.
Truth is none of us truly eat like the true RPDieters of yore, because as you show in your picture, we don't eat anything that our paleo ancestors ate.... Tuna is a deep sea fish, so it is no more paleo than milk..... :o
You eat a raw diet, not a raw paleo diet.
-
Iguana,
my paternal grandmother is from Switzerland as well as some good friends here in Canada. Sounds like an interesting and beautiful place.
-
Of course the fact that milk was likely consumed during the Paleolithic and continues to be consumed by some hunter-gatherers and many pastoralist peoples today and a number of people who have shared positive raw dairy experiences in this forum and others doesn't necessarily guarantee that we are all adapted to it or any other food; nor does it guarantee that all of us are not at all adapted to it either. These are just some clues among many that I cannot ignore if I am to be honest with myself.
I was attracted to this forum in part because it did not officially promote dairy, having encountered some vocal pro-dairy zealots at another forum, but I think the anti-dairy talk from some folks goes overboard at times. I know it's well-intentioned, but it's probably counter-productive when it reaches a certain point. I can understand it to some degree, given what I've seen from overzealous dairy advocates over the years.
Based on peoples' reports I've seen and the totality of the evidence (of all types) to date, dairy of one form or another appears to be beneficial to some and not to others.
the alliesthetic instinct is not an “all or nothing” function. It works also to a certain extend with cooked food, mixed food, dairy. But not well enough to ensure a proper balance.
Only the experience can tell and so far all experiments done in Switzerland and France with the best raw milk from entirely grass fed cows, goats or sheep (AFAIK none of us has ever been able to get milk from a wild animal) have been a disaster.
Your experience differs from many others I have seen report here and elsewhere. Some tout dairy or raw dairy or certain forms of raw dairy as a perfect miracle food and others condemn it as an evil poison. My assessment so far lies between the two extremes.
Why do you want a departure of tolerance and why is it necessary? Is departure of tolerance a guarantee of improved health in every case? I don't have good tolerance of most carby foods, but I don't dismiss all positive reports regarding fruits, roots, tubers and squashes because of this and I don't assume their positive reports are only because they didn't first achieve poor tolerance. Poor tolerance could be a sign of deficiencies in nutrients and antioxidants like minerals, glutathione, B6 and so on, allergies, gut dysbiosis, metabolic dysfunction and so on. For some of us, rather than just coddle our dysfunctions by avoiding dairy or carby foods for the rest of our lives, maybe it makes sense to try to remedy the dysfunctions that are causing the poor tolerances?
As I've discussed before, my definition of Paleo is not necessarily the staple foods that most or all people ate during the Stone Age, but the foods that each individual is best biologically/metabolically/nutritionally adapted to and that will help them meet their individual health goals. Isn't the goal for most to improve their health, performance, or well being rather than devotedly re-enact the past regardless of the consequences? The scant Stone Age (and earlier) dietary evidence we have is a clue, not a final answer.
-
Excellent post, Phil.
-
Excellent post, Phil.
C_K,
SMOKEYROBINSON & the Miracles- I second that emotion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI_0tQdEA5k#)
-
ROFL
-
Truth is none of us truly eat like the true RPDieters of yore, because as you show in your picture, we don't eat anything that our paleo ancestors ate.... Tuna is a deep sea fish, so it is no more paleo than milk..... :o
You eat a raw diet, not a raw paleo diet.
Well, towards the end of the Palaeolithic era, humans did cross to Australia and Polynesia etc. , so they likely did eat deep-sea fish then. Perhaps even before.... who knows?
-
Well, towards the end of the Palaeolithic era, humans did cross to Australia and Polynesia etc. , so they likely did eat deep-sea fish then. Perhaps even before.... who knows?
Hmm that sounds a bit like the silly argument that people ate the milk from a female animal they killed. ;D I mean maybe, well sort of, possibly... However thanks for the info, you have a wide knowledge base.
-
Why do you want a departure of tolerance and why is it necessary? Is departure of tolerance a guarantee of improved health in every case? I don't have good tolerance of most carby foods, but I don't dismiss all positive reports regarding fruits, roots, tubers and squashes because of this and I don't assume their positive reports are only because they didn't first achieve poor tolerance. Poor tolerance could be a sign of deficiencies in nutrients and antioxidants like minerals, glutathione, B6 and so on, allergies, gut dysbiosis, metabolic dysfunction and so on. For some of us, rather than just coddle our dysfunctions by avoiding dairy or carby foods for the rest of our lives, maybe it makes sense to try to remedy the dysfunctions that are causing the poor tolerances?
Thanks to finally be someone who ask it, because I was rather sure none here understand what I mean!
Well, it’s not at all what you talk about, which is a completely opposite thing. What I talk about is the immune system tolerance (dysfunction) induced by a constant and repetitive exposure to something noxious. For example, by regularly smoking or drinking booze, people become able to do it without any apparent negative effect because their body finally stopped to try to expel a poison to which it is constantly exposed, their immune system being overwhelmed and thus stopping to operate against that particular nuisance. A slow, gradual poisoning takes place then and the final result shows up several years or decades latter.
The same happen with cooked food and dairy. As long as you regularly consume it, no detoxination happen.
-
>> The same happen with cooked food and dairy. As long as you regularly consume it, no detoxination happen.
Sounds good!
-
I don't think you can easily dismiss WP, however I am not suggesting people follow him. His observations were pretty clear and follow the same vein as other places in the world. I've been to places inside the Arctic Circle and seen the destruction of the native populations by us Honkies.
I’m not dismissing Weston Price, it’s just that his conclusions must be relativized because he studied people eating cooked food. Of course, wherever these people still had a traditional diet without white sugar, without white flour and without other refined modern industrial foods, they had a better health, with normal, strong bones, jaws and dentition – the features he mostly studied as a dentist.
The way I see it, anybody in those communities who had problems with dairy etc simply died and so were out of the gene pool. Same is true with the Inuit etc. If you were unable to live on seal blubber you died.
There has certainly been a partial natural selection, that’s why Nordic people seem to be less un-adapted to dairy than Africans and south-east Asians. But it’s very far from sure that this adaptation is adequate for most and you can’t know if yourself are personally sufficiently adapted, the absence of short term reaction being no proof, even more so if you didn’t get out of tolerance - the time to get there being highly variable and undefined. I guess it would take one or two years to be somewhat sure about it.
Truth is none of us truly eat like the true RPDieters of yore, because as you show in your picture, we don't eat anything that our paleo ancestors ate.... Tuna is a deep sea fish, so it is no more paleo than milk..... :o
That’s a point we’ve been wondering ourselves. The experience doesn’t show any problem with tuna and other deep sea fish species, contrary to what has been experienced with dairy. So why? Tyler provided an answer, which may either be valid or may not be. Anyhow, fish consumption (various fish species as a class of food) is certainly much more ancient than animal milk consumption. Several species of mammals can catch fish and humans could certainly have somehow access to fish before developing harpoons and hooks, about 2 or 3 hundred thousand years ago. Sure, regular meat and shellfish consumption happened even long before regular fish consumption, but raw fish have always provided clear instinctive stop signals, whatever the species.
You eat a raw diet, not a raw paleo diet.
That comment applies to you, not to me, thanks. As I told you, you are attempting to redefine what “paleo diet” means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet)
Centered on commonly available modern foods, the contemporary "Paleolithic diet" consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[1][3][4]
http://thepaleodiet.com/what-to-eat-on-the-paleo-diet/ (http://thepaleodiet.com/what-to-eat-on-the-paleo-diet/)
The Paleo Diet | Dr. Loren Cordain, Founder of the Paleo Diet ...The Paleo Diet, the healthiest diet that mimics the diets of our caveman ancestors, includes meats, seafood, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. | Dr. Loren Cordain
-
How bears get fish nowadays ;D (short video)
http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/15/easier-than-fishing/#more-126222 (http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/15/easier-than-fishing/#more-126222)
-
Reports from Spanish explorers in the early 16th century who arrived in the Philippines noted that sea food (near the shores... no need to venture out far), lake food, and river food... all aquatic animals / fish / sea weed were extremely abundant... super duper extremely abundant.
As well as forest game and forest fruit were extremely abundant... wild pigs couldn't run because they were too darn fat from too much forest fruit and other edible vegetation.
Raw wild honey was extremely abundant.
(Philippine recorded history only began with those Spaniards... we were mostly tribal except for the ancient city / town of Manila).
-
Thanks to finally be someone who ask it, because I was rather sure none here understand what I mean!
Well, it’s not at all what you talk about, which is a completely opposite thing. What I talk about is the immune system tolerance (dysfunction) induced by a constant and repetitive exposure to something noxious. For example, by regularly smoking or drinking booze, people become able to do it without any apparent negative effect because their body finally stopped to try to expel a poison to which it is constantly exposed, their immune system being overwhelmed and thus stopping to operate against that particular nuisance. A slow, gradual poisoning takes place then and the final result shows up several years or decades latter.
The same happen with cooked food and dairy. As long as you regularly consume it, no detoxination happen.
Here is what I hear you saying saying Iguana: if you cannot win an argument on facts, go for the "you'll be sorry someday!!" argument. That's the same argument the veges use on meat eaters and the cooked food crowd uses on raw food eaters. It's hollow.
You can do better than that.
Every alcoholic I know is easy to pick out. They usually stink and their noses are immune to it. Typically they have a host of different physical manifestations of their slow poisoning. It does not take a genius to see the damage. After a particularly wild night they cannot be trusted the next day to do anything sensible despite being quite confidant of the opposite. I read somewhere that Mario Andretti stated that he would not have any alcohol for 6 days before a race. Yes some are able to hide it better, but they cannot hide it. One drunk I knew actually functioned quite well but he shook like a leaf all the time. I remember one dolt that I knew who took out a camera (the morning after) to take a picture of some things for his job. He pointed the camera toward his eye and just about blew his eyes out when the flash went off in his eye. Even light to moderate drinkers typically get every cold/flu/illness going around and have a regular spot in the line at the Doctor's office.
-
How bears get fish nowadays ;D (short video)
http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/15/easier-than-fishing/#more-126222 (http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/15/easier-than-fishing/#more-126222)
LOL
-
Al, I'm not trying to win this argument. I'm just trying to explain what I understand and tell what my friends who founded the raw paleo -instincto movement almost 50 years ago in Switzerland - as well as prof Jean Seignalet in Montpellier - found out after long, methodical experiences and experiments with various animals, themselves, their children and thousands of volunteers, decades before Cordain and Eaton.
Go on consuming dairy if you are so sure it's ok and if your feet never stink cheese, I don't care. Perhaps milk is better in America...
-
It sounds like you're talking about an elimination test, Iguana. I agree that it makes sense to do an elimination trial, rather than just assume that one tolerates dairy. The standard food elimination trial advice that my naturopathic physician and most others give is to eliminate a suspect food(s) for 3 weeks or so and then try a re-introduction challenge, as it supposedly takes about 3 weeks for most or all of the toxins from a food sensitivity to leave the body. I err on the cautious side and suggest a month or more. 2 years is way longer than I've ever heard of. If it takes that long for any benefits to appear, then the toxicity is negligible and it would be impossible to tell if any re-introduction symptoms were related or just random noise. If you think that dairy is so minimally toxic that it takes 2+ years for benefits to show, then what's all the fuss about?
If I argued that fruits are no good for humans because I and a bunch of others I know don't tolerate them well, that our ancestors didn't eat them as a staple, and that no one can know whether they tolerate fruits or not unless they avoid them for 2 years, would you test that, or would you dismiss it as ridiculously extreme?
I avoided dairy for more than 4 years before re-introducing it. I only noticed benefit (mainly dental) by re-introducing pastured butter. I don't experience any problems from moderate amounts of raw sheep cheeses. Some other dairy foods do give me some negative effects. Eliminating dairy years ago didn't produce nearly the benefits for me that eliminating gluten, processed sugary foods, and most legumes, and lowering my carb intake did. Not all the reports from GCB, you and other Instincto-type dieters match my own experience. Take it for what you will and to each their own.
I'll avoid the cooked food discussion, as that could go off on a tangent and anyone who's here, other than trolls, presumably already accepts that raw foods provide at least significant benefits.
Here's the stated forum policy on inclusion of controversial foods:
Welcome New Members! Please Read.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/welcoming-commitee/welcome-new-members (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/welcoming-commitee/welcome-new-members)!-please-read/
"A 100% RPD is certainly not required, as we are all on our own path to health." - Waungata
-
Sorry Phil : no, you don’t understand me. It’s like you are still reasoning in terms of Aristotle physics while we are in Newton or in Einstein physics. Is the fundamental revolution brought by GCB so difficult to grasp?
He explains what he means by “tolerance” or “intolerance” towards the end of this document http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat4.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat4.html) (type “tolerance” in the “search” case to get directly to the paragraphs).
I’m not sure how to interpret the discrepancies between your own experience and the instincto experiences. Probably that such an exit of tolerance happens for sure only when someone has eaten 100% raw paleo long enough with a satisfactory instinctive regulation.
Of course, I agree with Waungata’s statement that "a 100% RPD is certainly not required” to participate in this forum. People eating cooked food and dairy are welcome, but active promotion of typical Neolithic foods on this Paleo Forum should not remain unanswered. A forum is meant for discussion, so everything is open to questioning.
-
I seem to recall that I suggested "Waungata's" statement there, originally.It was only really to encourage more people on the fringes to join us, and increase membership. I didn't want to be too ideological, as well. On the other hand, rawpaleoforum was also mainly meant as a refuge from other forums which were too dominated by pro-raw dairy/pro-cooked-food-advocates, so I am far more in sympathy with Iguana on this issue.My idea is that raw dairy-related topics should be freely discussed without criticism on the weston-price and primal diet forums. On other forums, such as this one, however, I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone like Iguana to criticise raw dairy.
-
Iguana, Sorry I tried to understand GCB's theory on tolerance and as usual I find his writing difficult to grasp. I understand you better than he, especially when you speak your own thoughts, but when you try to explain GCB's theories you tend to lose me. I guess I don't have the brain power to comprehend his grand theories. As I've said before, I'm a simple man. Would you please bring the Einsteinian physics down to a level an unschooled Bushman would understand?
Probably that such an exit of tolerance happens for sure only when someone has eaten 100% raw paleo long enough with a satisfactory instinctive regulation.
That assumption rather conveniently fits your anti-dairy view. :)
everything is open to questioning
I agree with you on this. That has been one of my fundamental views for many years.
Tyler, as I mentioned, the fact that this forum was welcoming of people like me (at the time) who don't eat dairy is one reason I was attracted to it, along with the fact that it was more tolerant of raw and had way more info on it than the one other forum that's very friendly to nondairy Paleoists but unfortunately tends to ridicule rawists, and the fact that Lex Rooker was an active member (and he eschews dairy, BTW).
I too think it's OK to criticize raw dairy, as I still do myself at times--such as when some folks try to make it out to be a guaranteed miracle cure for everything for everyone--I just don't have a problem with people reporting positive results from raw dairy or other aspects of it in this forum and I don't understand why Iguana is up in arms. If it works for them, then it works, regardless of what the official Paleo ideology is. I put more weight on what actually works for each individual than ivory tower theories.
If Paleo means that one shouldn't eat dairy even if it provides benefits, then Paleo is nonsensical. To me, that's not what true Paleo is about.
-
I'm not taking sides here, But, there is short term health benefits, and long term. I think we need to keep that in mind. We're almost all suspect of having found and extolling our new fountain of youth. I keep falling into that hole. Because someone may put on weight or have increased energy does not necessarily mean that food will serve them well for years to come. I discovered that with some of the healthiest goat milk on the planet over some 15 years.... So it really may come down to individual experiences. But I will say it again,, the most important aspect of being able to use milk as a food is the gut flora. In the case of the Swiss in various studies, to have known the makeup of their flora would have been most telling. A gut flora which most likely evolved over countless generations; complex as the rest of the human being. So to try to thrive on dairy can be quite hit or miss. When you look at the specific strains of bacteria and yeast in a kefir grain, the numbers can approach 100 different strains,, all working in harmony. It is suggested that we can all repopulate our colons with lactose digesting bacteria, it just takes time, but there won't be any guarantee that which ones we are exposed to are the ones most beneficial for our own anatomy. The Masai's gut flora makeup as compared to the Swiss gut flora makeup. Remember there are more bacterial cells in your colon than the rest of the cells in the entire body.
-
I'm not taking sides here, But, there is short term health benefits, and long term. I think we need to keep that in mind.
Of course. I'm on you're side with that. ;D :P
We're almost all suspect of having found and extolling our new fountain of youth.
Yeah, that's the sort of thing from avidly pro-dairy folks that turned me off in the past. Unfortunately, I think I over-reacted a bit and was a bit too harsh on dairy in the past.
But I will say it again,, the most important aspect of being able to use milk as a food is the gut flora.
I think you're right. That fits with the experience of African pastoralists who were observed to show no symptoms of lactose intolerance despite not having developed the genetic adaptation of lactase persistence. Interestingly, they typically fermented their milk, if I recall correctly, and it was of course raw. I don't recall if it was the Masai who were studied or someone else.
It seems that bacteria do much of the digesting of dairy, so that genetic adaptation may be partially or wholly unnecessary, and some novel foods also may require less genetic or epigenetic adaptation to begin with. After all, milk is a natural food, rather than a procreative device that requires defending, such as with seeds.
-
Iguana, Sorry I tried to understand GCB's theory on tolerance and as usual I find his writing difficult to grasp. I understand you better than he, especially when you speak your own thoughts, but when you try to explain GCB's theories you tend to lose me. I guess I don't have the brain power to comprehend his grand theories. As I've said before, I'm a simple man. Would you please bring the Einsteinian physics down to a level an unschooled Bushman would understand?
Sorry, I thought I should have added that it took myself 3 successive reading of the original version of his book (the version translated in English which is freely available on line may not be perfectly accurate) plus weekend courses with him and a whole week of discussion in a in-depth seminar to get my mind clear of previous misconceptions we’ve all been taught since childhood. Without even realizing that, we automatically think along the pre-set schemes which plagues the whole current medical and dietary ways of thinking.
I’m under the impression that you’re more clever than I, so I took for granted that you would grab it easily and faster than me.
For example, he doesn’t pretend that an instinctive raw paleo nutrition brings any health benefits: on the contrary it’s the Neolithic and modern cooked food which is a potential cause of troubles. Eating raw paleo is just and only the normal way, the way that has always been that of all animals and hominids during hundreds millions years. So, we don’t pretend to be able to cure anything. It’s the body which self-heal once the cause of its illness has been removed. (The French judicial system tried to convict him for illegal practice of medicine, but failed. So they had to find another way to arrest him.)
Another example is the ridiculous way conventional medicine is seeing common bacteria and virus as our enemies, a view which has been completely reversed in GCB’s theoretical model. It implies that contagion of bacterial and viral diseases should be beneficial. If these diseases become dangerous and sometimes deadly it’s due to the continuous intake of cooked food and cereal grains (and dairy, LOL! ;)) which contains precisely the abnormal molecules theses diseases are meant to expel.
When we speak about “tolerance”, you have in mind the approach which is taught by scholars still embedded in the current conventional medical and dietary views while GCB is talking about something else. (That’s what I’m under the impression, sorry if I’m wrong). You know too much, much more than me, but you still integrate (or are trying to do so) your knowledge in the conventional theoretical model which has been wrecked by GCB. It prevents you to properly understand him. Get rid of all you think you know, and start building a new theoretical model from scratch (or adopt a more “facts fitting one” already devised by someone else… ;)) . It’s one of the main pillars of the scientific method: the methodical doubt of philosopher René Descartes — and that’s how GCB proceeded.
If Paleo means that one shouldn't eat dairy even if it provides benefits, then Paleo is nonsensical. To me, that's not what true Paleo is about.
Of course, dairy can be beneficial in some cases. Bread too! It may be better to eat raw dairy than no animal food at all (at least for some people and in some cases) and it is certainly better to eat bread and cheese than let us die from starvation if no other food is available.
But as Van pointed out, there are short term and long term results which may be completely opposite. A clear example is medical drugs. So it’s extremely difficult to draw any conclusion from short term results, even more so in a single individual case. It’s somehow like playing Russian roulette: dairy may be ok or even beneficial for you, even in the long term if you’re lucky enough. But only if you’re lucky enough!
After all, milk is a natural food, rather than a procreative device that requires defending, such as with seeds.
Milk is natural for the babies who suck it. They don’t commonly suck the milk from a female of another species, even if it may occasionally happen — similarly as animal may occasionally have access to food grilled in a wildfire or on volcanic lava.
-
Iguana, you have not made your case for a better definition of "tolerance".
The only drawback I can see to longterm use of raw dairy (in people who do not have any obvious intolerance to it) is its unbalanced calcium/magnesium ratio. Many studies have linked calcium to heart disease, and magnesium to preventing heart disease. I personally only eat cream, which is much lower in minerals and higher in fat, calories, and fat-soluble vitamins. This way I get the fat and fat-soluble vitamins, without nearly as much of the excess calcium.
You're right that luck does play a role, in that sense. If you have no genetic tendency to heart disease, then you are much less likely to suffer from heart disease, whether or not you consume raw dairy. The opposite is true if you have a strong genetic tendency to heart disease...and raw dairy will definitely increase the risk of heart disease if you already have a genetic tendency to it (In my opinion, anyway).
I don't see any other hidden, slow-building problems with grassfed raw dairy. Heart disease is the only one I can point to.
-
Lactose leads to copper deficiency:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2g.shtml (http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2g.shtml)
Other problems with dairy are its hormone-content which is very disruptive. So it's not just the casein- and lactose-intolerance which makes raw dairy harmful. Oh, yes, and wai genriuu also stated that the excess calcium in dairy might be helpful for bones in the short-term, but highly destructive in the long-term:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm (http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm)
-
copper deficiency would be a good thing in my case, I cant even touch copper without feeling like shit, I have had large copper ring around my neck give me a seizure(yes my friends are assholes!)
-
Lactose leads to copper deficiency:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2g.shtml (http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2g.shtml)
Other problems with dairy are its hormone-content which is very disruptive. So it's not just the casein- and lactose-intolerance which makes raw dairy harmful. Oh, yes, and wai genriuu also stated that the excess calcium in dairy might be helpful for bones in the short-term, but highly destructive in the long-term:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm (http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm)
Copper deficiency is going to show up in a few months or a couple of years. That's a short-term problem, in my view, and fairly easily-reversed. And, if the diet is nutritious enough, it's not a problem.
The hormone thing is pretty suspect, to me. I'm sure it applies in some people, but plenty of traditional tribes consume grassfed dairy without widespread reports of weird hormone problems.
I think there might be something to the bone thing. However, my point about consuming only cream/butter applies in this case.
-
Iguana, thanks for your patience and time spent sharing what you practice.
-
Yes, and thanks also to Raw-Al and Cherimoya for their patience and time spent sharing here what they practice. :)
Thanks for explaining your views, Iguana. To me it seems more that your writing is clearer and more practical than GCB's, rather than that misconceptions somehow reduce the comprehensibility of his writing. You seem to have greater facility with English, which I appreciate, as I think it has helped me understand various Instincto concepts.
As I stated above, I avoided all dairy for years, and I recommended to my close friends and relatives that they avoid it, and I had to be persuaded by a growing accumulation of evidence to a less critical view, including the positive experiences reported in this and other forums and other evidence. So they have been enlightening for me. I try to be open-minded and I welcome such enlightenment. Given all this, attributing what I've recently written to previous misconceptions taught since childhood, or to automatically thinking along pre-set conventional schemes, would make no sense in my case and I doubt that it's the case for Cherimoya and all others who consume dairy. Can you really know what's in other people's heads? If not, then isn't there a risk of wishful thinking when assumptions are made about why other people think what they do? To be useful, don't dietary forums need to be on guard for confirmation bias as well as trolls?
Early in this dairy discussion you supplied your definition of "Paleo" as not including dairy because it's "recent on the evolution timescale" and then wondered "why so many posters relentlessly keep on touting milk and dairy here". Perhaps it seems that way in part because not everyone shares your definition of "Paleo" in every detail and maybe the positive reports and comments are because people are honestly sharing their experiences?
No one has tried to silence criticism of dairy. Do you want people to withhold their dairy experiences and comments if they don't fit with your definition of Paleo? Should we hold dogmatically to past definitions even if new accumulating information contradicts them? Are you aware that there is a lot of disagreement in the broader Paleo community about what Paleo really is or should be and that it's far from a settled question?
The point-counterpoint arguments re: dairy will likely never be entirely resolved. I don't find GCB or Wai's opinions persuasive that all should avoid dairy, sorry, and I've seen all of them (or variants of them) before from other critics of dairy, and I've made many of the same anti-dairy points myself in the past, including the tolerance point (and I still recommend that people with health or stubborn overweight issues try a dairy elimination for a month or so--especially the carb and protein fractions--to see if reveals anything). I agree that there are questions and potential problems regarding various forms of dairy for many people, including myself, I'm just not troubled by Raw-Al's or Cherimoya's posts on it, which was why I chimed in.
If there was a particular post that provides a good example of what troubles you, perhaps you could share it? I can empathize with you. The sort of thing from the pro-dairy crowd that gets my goat is when someone says something like "raw milk is the perfect food" and makes no allowance for variances among individuals. I haven't noticed that sort of thing lately, but maybe I missed it?
Tyler, thanks for that link indicating that lactose may reduce copper levels. Quite interesting. So you think that some info from www.beyondveg.com (http://www.beyondveg.com) is legit on at least some things, like this? I may investigate this further.
copper deficiency would be a good thing in my case
Yeah, I was unaware of the copper-reducing effect of lactose, which would also be beneficial for me.
-
Ok, Phil. Yes, I appreciate your open mind.
Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet. I had to rethink about it and try to get it straight in my mind before explaining it properly, which I failed to do (because I was eager to go to the beach!), as pointed out by Cherimoya Kid.
The assumption is that by eating cooked food or an excessive amount of any specific foodstuff, the body gets polluted by abnormal molecules and foreign proteins. Before becoming a part of us, ingested foreign proteins must be cut into amino acid which are subsequently re-formed in suitable human proteins, as well explained by Seignalet under his point 3 here http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html) :
3. Protein metabolism. To keep this foreword reasonably short, only protein-based non-initial molecules will here be described as against sugar- or fat-based NIMs.Man's bodily tissues mainly consist of proteins that are amino acid chains. Renewing man's protein pool requires h4im to metabolise vegetable and animal dietary protein. It is therefore crucial for dietary proteins to be properly broken down into their constituent amino acids. Should some amino acids retain peptide structures of varying lengths, they may not be suitable for human protein synthesis. By way of illustration, imagine human proteins consist of English words, animal proteins of French words, and vegetable proteins of Russian words. If separate letters were taken from say, French or Russian words, it will still be possible to produce English words. However, should some sequences remain clustered, the fragments yielded will fail to be part of an English word. Thus, the French combination "qui" or the Russian "vitch" form no part of any English word.
If you’re interested, you can read the complete explanation of Seignalet, which is quite technical. (select the text, copy and paste it on Word or whatever to get rid of the mess on the webpage) but certainly more accurate than my approximate attempt.
To make it short, cancerous cells continuously appear in our bodies. These are earmarked by what I think is called in English “antigen presentation”, so that the immune system can identify them and destroy them. Now, when the body is polluted by foreign proteins which trigger the cells having included them to show a specific type of “antigene presentation” on their membrane, the immune system is thought to finally go “on strike” (tolerance), failling to destroy those cells anymore as it would involve destruction of a large proportion of the body.
If, by an unfortunate coincidence, a cancerous cell happen to have precisely the same “antigene presentation” than the one the immune system is on strike against (tolerant), then it won’t be destroyed and will be able to freely proliferate.
That’s why GCB thinks an excessive consumption of proteins is dangerous, especially if those proteins have a shape only slightly different of human proteins, so that the immune system could too easily fail to recognize them as foreign. It appeared that meat of domestic mammals can easily be consumed in excess, leading to some foreign proteins having not been broken into amino acids by our enzymes to pass through the bowel lining. That’s what would have led to the cancer of Nicole, according to GCB. This problem is much more acute with dairy products to which our adaptation is unlikely to be complete and our instinctive stop signals extremely weak.
Seignalet : In all such diseases, ailing health is caused by an immune reaction to an antigen's having inveigled into the body. Now, pure fats are not immunogenic. As for pure sugars (polyosides), there are only immunogenic with a molecular weight above 100,000, and, additionally, T lymphocytes are not involved in immune response to those polyosides (2). Hence, there is grounds for thinking that the antigenic culprit is a peptide.
Would it mean that cream and butter would not trigger the same problem? I don’t know, I’m incompetent to tell.
-
Reports from Spanish explorers in the early 16th century who arrived in the Philippines noted that sea food (near the shores... no need to venture out far), lake food, and river food... all aquatic animals / fish / sea weed were extremely abundant... super duper extremely abundant.
As well as forest game and forest fruit were extremely abundant... wild pigs couldn't run because they were too darn fat from too much forest fruit and other edible vegetation.
Raw wild honey was extremely abundant.
(Philippine recorded history only began with those Spaniards... we were mostly tribal except for the ancient city / town of Manila).
Very interesting, thanks. Was milk extremely abundant too? ;) ;D :'(
-
In the report i read there was no mention of milk.
The only indigenous possible milk giver is the water buffalo locally known as carabao / calabao.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabao)
....
Always a pleasure reading opinions and arguments here. Thanks everyone.
-
Thanks for the positive vibes, GS. And thanks to Raw-Al and Cheri for the appreciative posts earlier. I try not to let notions of popularity influence my opinions, but I'm thankful for the positive feedback.
Iguana, I agree that an excessive consumption of proteins is probably dangerous, and among the Americans, Paul Jaminet and Dr. Ron Rosedale have written rather brilliantly on this. Cheri is correct that this would not be a problem if cream (preferably raw, cultured, and pastured) and butter (ditto) were emphasized, rather than such modern horrors as low-fat pasteurized 100% grain/molasses/candy/chicken-turd/garbage-fed milk.
Here are some old breeds of domesticated milk-producing animals that would probably produce healthier dairy products than the most commonly used animals and breeds today:
Camels:
(https://www.umass.edu/umhome/sites/default/files/Feature_landingimage_Guerilla.jpg)
Yaks:
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/food/their_yaks_4-14_post.jpg)
Karakul sheep:
(http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/karakul/karak1.jpg)
Galway sheep:
(http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/galway/galway2.jpg)
Nubian goats:
(http://www.i-n-b-a.org/images/stories/nubianhay.jpg)
Kerry cattle:
(http://www.maamcrossmart.com/kery56.jpg)
Dinka cattle:
(http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/380x275/media/120404/dinka_3.jpg)
Zulu Nguni cattle:
(http://pic.pilpix.com/1/1649/nguni-cattle-paintings-i-n-oils.jpg)
Mongolian horse:
(http://www.discovermongolia.mn/images/blog_and_news/how-to-ride-a-horse.jpg)
-
That's interesting, Iguana. I didn't know about that theory of cancer and protein.
-
Ok, Phil. Yes, I appreciate your open mind.
Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet. I had to rethink about it and try to get it straight in my mind before explaining it properly, which I failed to do (because I was eager to go to the beach!), as pointed out by Cherimoya Kid.
The assumption is that by eating cooked food or an excessive amount of any specific foodstuff, the body gets polluted by abnormal molecules and foreign proteins. Before becoming a part of us, ingested foreign proteins must be cut into amino acid which are subsequently re-formed in suitable human proteins, as well explained by Seignalet under his point 3 here http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html) :
If you’re interested, you can read the complete explanation of Seignalet, which is quite technical. (select the text, copy and paste it on Word or whatever to get rid of the mess on the webpage) but certainly more accurate than my approximate tentative.
To make it short, cancerous cells continuously appear in our bodies. These are earmarked by what I think is called in English “antigen presentation”, so that the immune system can identify them and destroy them. Now, when the body is polluted by foreign proteins which trigger the cells having included them to show a specific type of “antigene presentation” on their membrane, the immune system is thought to finally go “on strike” (tolerance), failling to destroy those cells anymore as it would involve destruction of a large proportion of the body.
My difficulty with this article also extends to most "scientificism" discussions.
The authors start off with assumptions that are based on the predjudice they started off with. Here is an example:
"1. Man's genetic adaptation to his natural environment. This tenet is in keeping with Darwin's theories published in 1859 and which remain valid despite their having been partly altered or improved on by other scientists. Species are descended from one another, evolution being due to genetic alterations (mutations, deletions, insertions, replication, genetic and chromosomic reshuffling) best suited for such changes being the ones selected - individuals fittest for survival in given surroundings superseding the lesser endowed. Both man's forebears and primeval man lived like animals and were subject to that law. Thorough-going natural selection over an extended timespan turned out beings well suited to their background and especially to their diet. "
This assumes that Darwin's theory or "Natural Selectionism" as a number of contrary-minded authors call it, is accurate. There are a number of well know objections to this modern religion, ie. large populations were decimated by starvation, which has nothing to do with cancer, or adaptation, or genes or DNA or enzymes or what can get through the intestinal tract. If there is no food such as when the sabre-toothed tigers were wiped out in North America, then there is no food. People cannot eat rocks and dirt and survive for a sensible period of time.
Cancer is a relatively modern disease in as far as it being a popular way to kick the bucket. My favourite version of the reason for the popularity of cancer is the one in "Dirty Electricity" by Epidemiologist Dr Samuel Milham A Brief Introduction to 'Dirty Electricity' - Dr. Sam Milham (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqxsXOWDiMU#)
That has squat to do with what we eat.
Ayurveda says that food that does not digest properly tends to get stuck in the GI Tract, sort of like glue. Then it eventually makes it's way through the osmotic barrier depending on the health of the tract (which is to a large degree based on it's lubricity, [is that a word LOL]... surprise, surprise fat [which dairy has in spades] is necessary for health because it provides the lubrication). Once it makes it's way into the blood it's anybody's guess as to where it ends up and what organs etc are damaged. Fat in the diet afaiac is primarily to lubricate the tract so that food can move along it, and the walls and thus the osmotic barrier is kept supple and strong, thus preventing undigested foods breaking through into the blood.
Before anyone gets excited obviously dairy is not the only source of fat.
Personally and this is my opinion, (not my religion like Darwinism is to Richard Dawkins) that humans have only devolved. There's a heap of wild and crazy guesses amoungst anthropologists etc that defy explanation and are typically left out when making broad brush descriptions of the "Descent of Man".
AFAIAC The only reason we live longer nowadays is that we have such an abundance of food and comforts that allow us to look out our windows at major weather upheavals and allow us to live in places that would have been impossible in the past when a minor weather issue could wipe out a bunch of us from starvation.
Regarding enzymes, they are not a static thing that we have all our lives. They diminish in quantity and quality as we age and may indeed be the reason that we age as a lot of people have concluded today. I personally think the reason we need additional enzymes particularly as we age is related to not eating raw foods.
Here is another statement that he makes which proves his predisposition to say what he believes and paint it up in a "Scientificism" article.
"Consequently, man has altogether strayed from his natural condition, considering that no wild animal feeds on the milk of another species,"
He clearly states that populations that consumed dairy expanded greatly and indeed may have wiped out the hunter-gatherers. this would lead one to believe the opposite of his assumption, in other words dairy must be good because it brought about a population explosion. By extension, his logic would have had us all kickin' the bucket from Cancer.....
However I return to what I said all along, which is that milk is like every food, in that it is apropos for some and not for others and as far as percentages, who gives a hoot! If it's good/bad for you, it's good/bad for you. Eating any food constantly without a break, I don't care whether it is raw or not is a bad idea. I can only stand a certain number of days with anything.
-
Dairy didn't cause any population explosions. Grains did. There's no way Earth could support the current population on a raw paleo diet. Technology may get us to that point, but it's not there yet.
-
Dairy didn't cause any population explosions. Grains did. There's no way Earth could support the current population on a raw paleo diet. Technology may get us to that point, but it's not there yet.
I think you're right.
-
That's interesting, Iguana. I didn't know about that theory of cancer and protein.
You're welcome.
Iguana, thanks for your patience and time spent sharing what you practice.
Thanks to you for this post, in which you originally stated something like:
Iguana, thanks for your patience and time spent sharing your knowledge with us.
Did you modify your post and why? I wanted to answer that the only thing I know is that I know almost nothing when taking into account the complexity of the living phenomenon and of the entire universe.
Raw Al, I understand that you don't believe in the evolution theory. That's your right and I had also great doubts about it before experiencing the instinctive raw paleo nutrition. But that diet takes its roots in the evolution theory, and the fact that we are better off with the nutrition of our ancestors of hundreds thousands or millions years ago seems to me be largely in favor of the evolution theory. It’s not a dogmatic one (“religious belief” as you state), but something provisional and in evolution itself, including different variants such as the theory of the punctuated equilibrium.
If the evolution theory is completely wrong, then the concept of raw paleo diet is plainly wrong too and we would not be able to live and thrive on exclusively on raw paleo foods.
My difficulty with this article also extends to most "scientificism" discussions.
(…)
Here is another statement that he makes which proves his predisposition to say what he believes and paint it up in a "Scientificism" article.
"Consequently, man has altogether strayed from his natural condition, considering that no wild animal feeds on the milk of another species,"
He clearly states that populations that consumed dairy expanded greatly and indeed may have wiped out the hunter-gatherers. this would lead one to believe the opposite of his assumption, in other words dairy must be good because it brought about a population explosion. By extension, his logic would have had us all kickin' the bucket from Cancer.....
Population explosion and individual health are not correlated in our case since the health troubles induced by Neolithic and cooked foods happen largely late in life, after the individuals have been able to reproduce. I think he emphasizes that fact.
Also, our notion of “good” and “evil (or bad)” are highly relative and dependant of the result we aim to. The population explosion can be seen either as a asset or as an evil according to the circumstances. Actually, it’s evidently a plague.
By the way, wouldn't the title "Raw eggs, raw milk, raw fish" be better suited to the whole thread?
-
Probably that such an exit of tolerance happens for sure only when someone has eaten 100% raw paleo long enough with a satisfactory instinctive regulation.
That assumption rather conveniently fits your anti-dairy view. :)
I’ve no anti-dairy preconceptions, but ok, there could be other explanations than this — which fits with the facts observed in Europe:
1. Milk is fundamentally different in America
2. You and some other Americans have a fundamental organic difference with Europeans
3. GCB and his old acquaintances whom I personally know are outright liars
4. Anything else
5. ??
-
5. not everyone's experiences match what GCB and you report and there is no dietary change from which everyone benefits equally, even generally positive changes, and what's beneficial for one person may even be harmful for another
6. GCB changed so many variables in his patients' diets and lifestyles, maybe something else other than dairy elimination was the key factor(s) in their health improvements
7. one study will find great benefits from an intervention and then another will find little or no benefit and the reason may never be figured out. That's one reason why the scientific method includes attempts to replicate study results by other parties (in this case, someone other than GCB). A hypothesis is generally not regarded as conclusive until a study can be replicated multiple times on sufficiently large study groups, which is expensive and is one reason why so many hypotheses remain inconclusive. Until then, we are left on our own to discover for ourselves what works for each of us.
GCB's own wife died of cancer, so it seems that he didn't get everything right, at least at first. I think he hypothesized that the error was too much beef muscle meat protein, and maybe dairy is something he also got wrong? He also reported observing "keratinizations" in multiple of his clients on his early recommended diet over the years, starting way back in 1964, yet he apparently stuck stubbornly to his recommended diet for years until his wife died of cancer and he could perhaps no longer ignore the problems? Is he (and all of us) not human and capable of mistakes and incorrect hypotheses? Perhaps this was a useful lesson; something good that came out of the tragedy of her cancer and death?
Cherimoya is right that the Earth cannot support the current population on a raw paleo diet, so shouldn't we be thankful that someone is willing to eat dairy foods?
-
5. not everyone's experiences match what GCB and you report and there is no dietary change from which everyone benefits equally, even generally positive changes, and what's beneficial for one person may even be harmful for another
Sure. For example it is sometimes too late for some elderly people to adopt a raw paleo diet: swapping the diet which has been theirs during their whole life would be a too harsh change.
6. GCB changed so many variables in his patients' diets and lifestyles, maybe something else other than dairy elimination was the key factor(s) in their health improvements
That’s possible. But he’s a very meticulous observer and experimenter. He and his friend of the early days clearly state that they carefully isolated the variables and suppressed milk of their diet several months (a few years perhaps) after going 100% raw, only after they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food. Therefore I would be extremely surprised if they made such a big mistake.
7. one study will find great benefits from an intervention and then another will find little or no benefit and the reason may never be figured out
It depends, amongst plenty other factors, how long in time the apparent effects of a diet are observed. Once again, ourselves don't pretend that an instincto diet brings any benefit, but we view instead the standard cooked diet as dangerous .
GCB's own wife died of cancer, so it seems that he didn't get everything right, at least at first. I think he hypothesized that the error was too much beef muscle meat protein, and maybe dairy is something he also got wrong? He also reported observing "keratinizations" in multiple of his clients on his early recommended diet over the years, starting way back in 1964, yet he apparently stuck stubbornly to his recommended diet for years until his wife died of cancer and he could perhaps no longer ignore the problems? Is he not human and capable of mistakes and incorrect hypotheses?
Of course he’s still not always right and I tend to disagree with him on some points. But I couldn’t find any fundamental flaw in his theories.
He warned Nicole that she ate too much beef muscle meat, but she didn’t believe him. In the end and against his advices, she relied on Hamer’s method, (which is somewhat a scam). In Switzerland, none of us believed GCB either when he wrote a text ascribing her dead to an excessive meat consumption.
Cherimoya is right that the Earth cannot support the current population on a raw paleo diet, so shouldn't we be thankful that someone is willing to eat dairy foods?
I agree with the first statement but disagree with the second since cattle farming in his current and common form is one of the greatest cause of environmental disasters on the planet!
Cheers
François
-
You shared some important words. Firstly, "they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food." So dairy was not the only possible culprit, it sounds like it was pasteurized, and many people have reported that wheat can damage the gut lining, enabling milk proteins to cross into the bloodstream, and that after wheat is eliminated and the gut is healed, the dairy proteins no longer cross the barrier and people start to find certain forms of dairy to be beneficial. It can reportedly sometimes take years of healing, though.
Secondly, "cattle farming in (its) current and common form." Changing the current form seems to be something that everyone agrees on. You're not against raw meat consumption, so the cattle will be raised, so utilizing their milk would provide more total food than not utilizing it. You wouldn't have to consume dairy and you would still benefit if other people consumed dairy instead of more of the meat, driving up meat demand and eventually prices. For example, when butter became much more popular in Sweden due to a high fat, low carb trend, the price of butter rose dramatically. If it had been a high protein, moderate fat trend, then the price of muscle meat would likely have risen greatly.
GCB's wife was not the only Instincto he reported witnessing health problems in. As I mentioned, he also reported observing keratinizations in his clients/followers over the years, starting back in 1964, which he attributed to "excessive consumption of protein" from "raw meat, especially beef, pork, mutton and game." Where did his clients get the idea to eat so much of these raw, mostly red, meats? It certainly didn't come from conventional wisdom, which argues against eating too much red meat and against eating any raw meats. Did he include a warning about this in his early writings after he started observing this in 1964?
-
You shared some important words. Firstly, "they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food." So dairy was not the only possible culprit, it sounds like it was pasteurized,
Of course not, it was from an organic farmer they new well and the cows were exclusively grass fed. Then, suspecting that their troubles when drinking milk were because that farmer did nevertheless something wrong, they bought their own goat to insure the quality of the milk they consumed.
and many people have reported that wheat can damage the gut lining, enabling milk proteins to cross into the bloodstream, and that after wheat is eliminated and the gut is healed, the dairy proteins no longer cross the barrier and people start to find certain forms of dairy to be beneficial. It can reportedly sometimes take years of healing, though.
It all depends on what was the initial diet and health condition of the person.
Secondly, "cattle farming in (its) current and common form." Changing the current form seems to be something that everyone agrees on. You're not against raw meat consumption, so the cattle will be raised, so utilizing their milk would provide more total food than not utilizing it. You wouldn't have to consume dairy and you would still benefit if other people consumed dairy instead of more of the meat, driving up meat demand and eventually prices. For example, when butter became much more popular in Sweden due to a high fat, low carb trend, the price of butter rose dramatically. If it had been a high protein, moderate fat trend, then the price of muscle meat would likely have risen greatly.
Yeah, what would be the world’s conditions if most people were eating that way or this other way…We can dream of a better world! Anyway, our small number of paleo rawists is a drop of water in an ocean of 7 billions people eating cooked food. >:
GCB's wife was not the only Instincto he reported witnessing health problems in. As I mentioned, he also reported observing keratinizations in his clients/followers over the years, starting back in 1964, which he attributed to "excessive consumption of protein" from "raw meat, especially beef, pork, mutton and game. "
It was much latter than 1964: that’s the year it all started with his idea to eat raw food according to our instinct. They were vegetarians at the time and they consumed dairy. It had not yet come to their mind that we can eat meat and fish raw.
Where did his clients get the idea to eat so much of these raw, mostly red, meats?
It certainly didn't come from conventional wisdom, which argues against eating too much red meat and against eating any raw meats.
Yes, that idea came from him. The idea was to consume it freely, as much and as often as our instinct leads us.
The theory is neat, but the way to practice in our modern world where a lot of foods and the conditions are different than hundred thousands years ago is something else, something which has been a matter of experimentations (trials and errors), discussions and arguments.
Did he include a warning about this in his early writings after he started observing this in 1964?
When he observed that, it must have been in the 80s. I followed his seminars between 1987 and 1990 and at the time he advised us not to regularly eat mammals’ meat everyday, but to alternate with fish, shellfish, eggs and poultry, so that red meat would be consumed in average about once a week.
-
Why did you say "of course not"? What would be so surprising about consuming pasteurized dairy given that you said they were eating wheat and cooked foods?
How did they fare on the goat milk? I vaguely recall you saying in the past that they did better, but then found that they improved even more by eliminating all dairy.
Anyway, our small number of paleo rawists is a drop of water in an ocean of 7 billions people eating cooked food.
Yes, one good thing about there being so few raw Paleoists and Paleoists in general is that we haven't yet caused any major food price spikes, AFAIK. It would be nice if it would become socially acceptable without many of our choice foods becoming much more expensive. That may be too much to wish for. In some ways I'm grateful for the vegans, vegetarians and high-dairy consumers who don't eat much of our favorite animal/sea foods, as it makes our WOE more likely to remain doable in the coming years (and a return to older and better farming techniques would also help, as you and Tyler have pointed out), though I don't care for their attempts to ridicule and ostracize us.
They were vegetarians at the time and they consumed dairy.
Fascinating. Did I ask you yet if GCB or other early Instincto people were influenced at all by the vegetarian lebensreform folks, like Arnold Ahret, Nietzsche, Sebastian Kneipp, Louis Kuhne, Rudolf Steiner, Karl Wilhelm Diefenbach, Fidus (Hugo Höppener), Gusto Graeser, Adolf Just, the naturmensch philosophy, Wandervogel, or similar influences?
Yes, that idea came from him. The idea was to consume it freely, as much and as often as our instinct leads us.
OK, so since he got that wrong (according to GCB himself), then maybe he's getting it wrong on raw dairy now--do you see what I mean? Maybe there are some forms of dairy that are OK for some people, the way the Masai and Dinka can consume fermented milk despite not having developed lactase persistance (IIRC).
BTW, I wonder if the tradition of at times mixing of blood into the milk, especially for ceremonies, among the Masai, Celts and other pastoral peoples, was one way of dealing with the excess calcium issue, as the iron in blood binds with the calcium--what do you think?
The tradition of heavy tea drinking among pastoral peoples like Celts, Turkics, Mongols and Tibetans (reportedly, Tibetans traditionally drank at times as much as 30 cups of butter tea a day!) also may have helped deal with the calcium:
"The oxalate intake from the regular daily consumption of black teas is modest when compared to the amounts of soluble oxalate that can be found in common foods. However, oxalate in black teas has the potential to bind to a significant proportion of calcium in the milk, which is commonly consumed with the black teas."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495262 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495262)
So, yes, there are probably risks with high amounts of dairy consumption, but pastoral peoples may have worked out ways for dealing with these risks, and modest consumption is probably less of a risk. This may help explain why these traditional peoples across the globe don't display high rates of the negative health effects that GCB reported from dairy, and why folks who are unaware of these traditional practices may develop problems and then attribute them to all dairy, instead of modern ways of consuming dairy that don't take into account traditional practices.
When he observed that, it must have been in the 80s. I followed his seminars between 1987 and 1990 and at the time he advised us not to regularly eat mammals’ meat everyday, but to alternate with fish, shellfish, eggs and poultry, so that red meat would be consumed in average about once a week.
Yet he hasn't yet warned about it in his published works, right? Maybe he has witnessed other things that he has yet to publish that are different from what he wrote in his published works up to this point? Given that he changed his mind about muscle meats, maybe some day he'll say that this or that form of dairy is OK for some people?
-
Iguana, you've seen my posts relating to the ability of one to build large colonies of lactose digesting bacteria, and my suspect that not all species making up colonies are ideal for the human gut (since it is their waste products that get reabsorbed and utilized by us). For instance I found some forms of bacteria simply too acid forming. The other thing I believe that happened for me in my 13 year experiment with raw grass fed nubian goat milk, is that in the first years, my body (as described by GCB used those raw molecules to exchange for the damaged ones my body had collected from drinking years and years of pasturized grain fed cow milk as a kid growing up (like everyone else in this country did). And the cleansing that came from that was potentially as powerful as what happened when I started eating raw tuna several times a week, after eating years and years worth of canned tuna... Bottom line here:: how do you know that GCB and his friend didn't experience the same sort of molecular exchange, and, knew what they were doing, by implanting the 'proper' beneficial bacteria to their intestines. I went so far as getting human specific bacteria, the strains usually found just after birth and innocculated whey and did implants many times. And made yogurts (raw) with the same species, and made raw kefirs with several different kefir varieties collected from different countries around the world. All of which provided different effects on the way my body utilized the milk from my grass fed goats. What I'm trying to convey is there are lots of variables. And, I too don't think milk is ideal for My body after all that,, and my goats are living out their lives on fifty acres of meadows right now.
-
Why did you say "of course not"? What would be so surprising about consuming pasteurized dairy given that you said they were eating wheat and cooked foods?
Did I say that?? Before 1964 or 65, yes they ate cooked food, but we are speaking of their raw period which started around these years.
How did they fare on the goat milk? I vaguely recall you saying in the past that they did better, but then found that they improved even more by eliminating all dairy.
No I didn’t say that either. AFAIK they didn’t notice any difference.
Fascinating. Did I ask you yet if GCB or other early Instincto people were influenced at all by the vegetarian lebensreform folks, like Arnold Ahret, Nietzsche, Sebastian Kneipp, Louis Kuhne, Rudolf Steiner, Karl Wilhelm Diefenbach, Fidus (Hugo Höppener), Gusto Graeser, Adolf Just, the naturmensch philosophy, Wandervogel, or similar influences?
He states somewhere in his book that, yes, they were influenced by the vegetarian ideology. Even now, there are people who practice a kind of vegetarian instincto nutrition, especially in Germany I think.
OK, so since he got that wrong (according to GCB himself), then maybe he's getting it wrong on raw dairy now--do you see what I mean?
Sure, he could be wrong on everything, like everyone.
Maybe there are some forms of dairy that are OK for some people, the way the Masai and Dinka can consume fermented milk despite not having developed lactase persistance (IIRC).
Maybe.
BTW, I wonder if the tradition of at times mixing of blood into the milk, especially for ceremonies, among the Masai, Celts and other pastoral peoples, was one way of dealing with the excess calcium issue, as the iron in blood binds with the calcium--what do you think?
I have no idea.
The tradition of heavy tea drinking among pastoral peoples like Celts, Turkics, Mongols and Tibetans (reportedly, Tibetans traditionally drank at times as much as 30 cups of butter tea a day!) also may have helped deal with the calcium:
"The oxalate intake from the regular daily consumption of black teas is modest when compared to the amounts of soluble oxalate that can be found in common foods. However, oxalate in black teas has the potential to bind to a significant proportion of calcium in the milk, which is commonly consumed with the black teas."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495262 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495262)
So, yes, there are probably risks with high amounts of dairy consumption, but pastoral peoples may have worked out ways for dealing with these risks, and modest consumption is probably less of a risk. This may help explain why these traditional peoples across the globe don't display high rates of the negative health effects that GCB reported from dairy, and why folks who are unaware of these traditional practices may develop problems and then attribute them to all dairy, instead of modern ways of consuming dairy that don't take into account traditional practices.
Interesting. Also these people have an active live in open air, a lot of physical activities, are less intoxinated than us by modern junk food and have been subject to a quite active natural selection until very recently if not until now. What can we infer of all this? Maybe that they would have died of malnutrition or starvation without dairy, or on the contrary that their health would be even better without dairy;
Yet he hasn't yet warned about it in his published works, right?
His book is not intended as a guide to the practice of instincto-nutrition but only meant to describe the theory. There’s even at the end a warning not to launch oneself into the practice without an adequate training and tutoring. He nevertheless states somewhere in it that meat should be included in the practice, but also that it should not be consumed in excess. I already copied and pasted that page somewhere in a discussion with KD and others.
There was a monthly publication in French called “Instincto Magazine” (formerly “Orkoscopie”) where this topic (and plenty others) was discussed in length by him and various authors.
Maybe he has witnessed other things that he has yet to publish that are different from what he wrote in his published works up to this point? Given that he changed his mind about muscle meats, maybe some day he'll say that this or that form of dairy is OK for some people?
Maybe some day, LOL! Actually it’s a fact that some ethnic groups living in hostile environment depend on dairy to survive and I don’t think he disputes that.
He launched his own forum here, if you are interested in his latest thoughts and if you can understand French:
http://instinctotherapie.ning.com/ (http://instinctotherapie.ning.com/)
-
Bottom line here:: how do you know that GCB and his friend didn't experience the same sort of molecular exchange, and, knew what they were doing, by implanting the 'proper' beneficial bacteria to their intestines.
I don’t know, Van.
-
Did I say that?? Before 1964 or 65, yes they ate cooked food, but we are speaking of their raw period which started around these years.
I was responding to this text of yours about their cooked food period:
after going 100% raw, only after they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food
It sounds like you thought I was talking about their raw period. Hope this clears it up.
I can believe that vegetarianism still runs strong in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, because it was strong there going back to at least the 19th century (and people from the lebensreform and other early European movements later reportedly influenced the vegetarian, hippie, nature boy and other movements in the USA).
He nevertheless states somewhere in it that meat should be included in the practice, but also that it should not be consumed in excess. I already copied and pasted that page somewhere in a discussion with KD and others.
OK, any idea why some of the people he monitored and observed ignored his advice and ate too much muscle meat anyway, and why their alliesthetic sense didn't give them stop signals? I imagine KD probably asked about that, so hope you don't mind answering again.
-
OK, any idea why some of the people he monitored and observed ignored his advice and ate too much muscle meat anyway, and why their alliesthetic sense didn't give them stop signals? I imagine KD probably asked about that, so hope you don't mind answering again.
They didn’t believe him, I told you that we in Switzerland didn’t believe either that raw meat can trigger a cancer and we've proceeded as before. Many — if not most — “instinctos” disagree with GCB about his “metapsychoanalysis” and are more or less irritated by his strong personality.
The alliestesic sense doesn’t provide a clear “stop” signal with meat of domestic animals (beef, porc, mutton), like every product having been selected by hundreds generations of our ancestors precisely in intend to get it remaining as tasty as possible whatever the amount eaten, so we tend to eat to much of it.
-
Thanks, GCB is actually in step with some conventional scientists and Paleoists re: protein, as cancer cells feed off of amino acids and carbs, whereas they can't use fats. So eating plenty of fat and limiting protein and carbs to certain levels makes some sense in light of this.
For myself, I actually find wild meats to taste better than domesticated, though I can't rule out that the stop signal might be messed up by grain-fed meats or something.
-
I must add that it was difficult to believe because some cancers had spontaneously and spectacularly self-healed while the person had been eating large amounts of raw meat everyday during some months.
GCB explained in an article that both facts were compatible, raw meat being necessary in large amounts during a certain period for a body to heal, while in "cruise conditions" it would be dangerous to continuously ingest daily such quantities during a long period. But this apparent contradiction was perhaps over the faculty of understanding of most people…
BTW, most long term instinctos also find wild meats tastier. These have a strong taste while I find that of beef bland, especially when fresh. Seems like the stronger taste of wild meats also provides a clearer stop signal.
-
Dairy didn't cause any population explosions. Grains did. There's no way Earth could support the current population on a raw paleo diet. Technology may get us to that point, but it's not there yet.
I seem to be unable to get through to you people. This is just not true. There is enough lawn grown in the US to grow enough cows to feed every American nothing but beef.
The technology is here, the resources are here. All it will take is a cultural shift.
See my post "the proverbial revolution is at hand".
-
Yes, Rogue Farmer, I keep your post about Allan Savory http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/the-aforementioned-%27revolution%27-is-at-hand/msg109223/#msg109223 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/the-aforementioned-%27revolution%27-is-at-hand/msg109223/#msg109223) and what he explains in mind, that's why I wrote 'in its current and common form" :
I agree with the first statement but disagree with the second since cattle farming in his current and common form is one of the greatest cause of environmental disasters on the planet!
What I fear is that it will take a long time till he's widely known, understood and till cattle farming is done almost everywhere as he suggests. Humans have a strong tendency to stick stubbornly to stupid, inefficient and obsolete ways. >: And meanwhile the population is still exploding. Another point is that we need other foods than beef also : seafood, wild animals meat, fruits as wild as possible, etc.
-
The way cattle are farmed in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, New Zealand and Brazil are vastly superior to American methods albeit still largely imperfect especially in NZ and Brazil where it often means rainforest destruction.
-
I seem to be unable to get through to you people. This is just not true. There is enough lawn grown in the US to grow enough cows to feed every American nothing but beef.
The technology is here, the resources are here. All it will take is a cultural shift.
See my post "the proverbial revolution is at hand".
We could maybe feed Americans a paleo diet that way (although I don't think people would easily accept having their lawns turned into grazing land), but not every human.
-
Ho ho ho... I bought an OSTRICH EGG!
P 800 for the egg $ 17 USD
The seller told me to use a DRILL to drill a hole at one end... then use a barbecue stick to help stir and let the contents flow into a bowl. Careful not to crack the shell for posterity.
I will be arranging a family meal with this egg, of course I will eat my fill of it raw and tell you how it tasted.
-
I once bought and ate a raw ostrich egg from the first Wholefoods chain-store in the UK, and it was a disappointment. Sure, ostriches are raised all over the world nowadays but if the ostriches are fed on junk food(ie grains), then, inevitably, their eggs and meat will taste very bland. Strangely, though, when I ate some wild boar meat that came from a UK farm(and was therefore fed almost wholly on grains), the meat tasted OK(though nowhere near as good as the raw wild boar meat I get in Austria, of course..
-
GS,
I hope it tastes better than the duck eggs we got awhile ago. They were so rich they were almost inedible. We bought a dozen and could not eat them all.
Much prefer the chicken eggs we get from our own.