Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet => Topic started by: Iguana on February 13, 2014, 11:29:51 pm
-
re raw dairy:- No one really needs raw dairy for health reasons. Quite a large number of us have food-allergies towards raw dairy and have found it easy to find other raw foods which were far more useful than raw dairy in boosting general health.
Can’t we at last agree that GCB’s view of allergies is consistent and much more coherent with raw paleo than the common view?
So, what in itself is an "allergic" reaction? It is a reaction of the immune system that disturbs the host, because it is stronger than normally, resulting in unpleasant symptoms.
There is no clear boundary between so-called normal immune response against foreign molecules (called antigens to express the fact that they trigger antibody formation) and an allergic reaction, except that the latter seems to escape the normal regulatory mechanisms (which can be recognized in the silence of the organs).
Why can there be a relationship between NCS (New Chemical Species derived from processing that accumulate in the body) and common antigens (all molecules from the environment recognized as foreign by the organism: hair, dust mites etc.)?
For a very simple reason that we usually don’t think about enough: there are multitudes of "cross-reactions" between different antigens. "Cross reaction" means that two different antigens trigger the same reaction of the immune system because of similar molecular surfaces.
Principally, the immune system identifies each antigen and implements a specific reaction. Each antibody produced has molecular reliefs which correspond exactly to the reliefs of the antigenic molecule to which it is intended. There is little risk of confusion. But with the billions of possibilities, some reliefs still lead to confusion, calleds "cross reactions" by immunologist.
It is thus understandable that a reaction triggered by a new antigen may be of unexpected importance if a similar antigen has already been introduced into the body and has "sensitized" the immune system. Therefore, food antigens (incompletely degraded molecules crossing the intestinal barrier) can sensitize the immune system, so that other antigens (dust, pollen, etc.) will trigger apparently inexplicable cross-reactions. This will ultimately lead to an allergy to foreign antigens, without suspecting that the reaction itself is induced by food antigens.
The converse suggests that by stopping the penetration of these food antigens (switching to a natural diet which doesn't contain the same non-degradable molecules), the immune response to environmental antigens will decrease rapidly. This is what can commonly be observed after transition to instincto.
However, there are some cases where these reactions occur with delay. The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens, such as the effect of repetitive consumption of dairy products. Then it may happen years later that a new antigen, from an unusual food, from an insect bite, from a bacterium, will cause the awakening of the immune system (immunologists refer to it as "breakdown of tolerance"). This apparently inexplicable reaction thus may seem disproportionate.
Reactions of this type are called "detoxination reaction" in instincto slang. Note that antigens capable of "awakening" the immune system, can derive from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, or from another organism), but foods are most often sources of antigens that provoke a breakdown of tolerance.
This concept is compatible with conventional notions of immunology, except that immunologists have not yet realized the importance of food antigens since they are unable to show their effect in the too repetitive context of a traditionally cooked diet.
...and that our immune system having become and remaining tolerant to the foreign proteins uncontrollably ingested with dairy is a weakness apt to cause troubles in the long term rather than an advantage? (see the original post by clicking on its link for the quotes within that quote: )
Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet. …
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 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.
See also this page which links articles outlining the danger of dairy consumption:
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dairy-food-articles/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dairy-food-articles/)
-
Can’t we at last agree that GCB’s view of allergies is consistent and much more coherent with raw paleo than the common view? ...and that our immune system having become and remaining tolerant to the foreign proteins uncontrollably ingested with dairy is a weakness apt to cause troubles in the long term rather than an advantage? (see the original post by clicking on its link for the quotes within that quote: )See also this page which links articles outlining the danger of dairy consumption:
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dairy-food-articles/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dairy-food-articles/)
Iguana,
I think it is fairly consistent. This has been argued till the cows come home. You are dairy basher.
Dairy is fine as long as you have no problems with it. This is a fact with any foods.
I and many others consume lots of it and have no problems. However equally true that lots of PPL have problems that range from minor issues like phlegm buildup to major life-threatening issues.
This is true for most foods. Milk is difficult to digest. I have strong digestion and if I don't consume foods that put this to use I have health problems. Simple as that.
You can blather on all you like, but you are reminiscent of the vegetarians when they bash meat consumption.
-
You are dairy basher.
Dairy is fine as long as you have no problems with it. This is a fact with any foods.
I had no problems that I could specifically attribute to dairy, and I ate a lot of it until December 1986, preferably raw. No one will have apparent immediate problem with any food whatsoever as long as their/our immune system became tolerant to that food. Can’t you understand that? With some luck, no problems will arise in the long term either. With bad luck, a cancer or any serious autoimmune disease will be the result of an inappropriate diet.
It’s a fact with any food. Most people have no apparent problem with cooked food, pastry, chocolate, coffee, etc. What happens to them decades latter is another matter – what matters, in fact. It’s so obvious that I wonder how you can’t see that.
And that is of course why the connection between cooked / Neolithic foods and diseases had not been recognized earlier. When you’ve eaten fried potatoes almost everyday during 50 years without problems, how can you realize that the cause of your heart attack is the fried potatoes?
I've got to repost it once again:
-
you both bring up good points. I know for myself that after years of using my own raw goat products that my body eventually seemed not to want it. But then the Swiss in the mountains have used it for centuries and achieved great health. (I know that this has been mentioned also). Iguana, how does one then determine whether or not milk is going to be problematic for them down the road if no symptoms appear immediately. I hope your answer includes more information than 'it was not original food, thus there hasn't been time to adapt'. thanks
-
Iguana, how does one then determine whether or not milk is going to be problematic for them down the road if no symptoms appear immediately.
You can't know. It's as simple as that!
The case is the same for cooked food. Some people will eat a common standard diet during all their life and die of a a bike accident at 100 years old.
-
Then i'd say if no symptoms appear then one might have the same ability to live healthily on milk as did the Swiss, assuming the cows are of proper breed, green grass and herbs are readily available, no hormones etc are used, and that most of the milk used is produced into either cheese and or other fermented products,, as I have no direct knowledge but believe the swiss mostly used their milk for cheese and butter. I also understand their other staple besides eating their farm animals, that rye bread was used, which I think has a fair amount of mg, especially if it was naturally leavened/fermented. And then let's not forget exercise at altitude, going to bed and rising with the sun, no emf's or other electrical pollution, and maintaining strong family and community ties, mountain air, fresh spring or glacial water, natural building materials in the house, as well as cleaning supplies, and of course the list could go on. But seriously some do horribly with strawberries, or oranges, or tomatoes or shellfish, and some don't.
-
Then i'd say if no symptoms appear then one might have the same ability to live healthily on milk…
What I tried unsuccessfully -[ to explain is the exact opposite — unless you meant "might have or might not have"...
as did the Swiss,
…
But seriously some do horribly with strawberries, or oranges, or tomatoes or shellfish, and some don't.
Some do horribly with raw sea fish, raw sea turtles blood, raw birds… as this Ezekiel who died in this http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/rawpaleodiet-adventure (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/rawpaleodiet-adventure)!/msg118851/#msg118851
We already talked about the supposed longevity of those Swiss mountaineers in the high valleys of the Wallis canton, near my hometown of Lausanne:
I think it’s Weston Price who pretended that these mountain people in Wallis valleys had the best health ever, but I’m not so sure about it.
They must probably have had a better health then people living in cities down the plains but there are certainly other factors than nutrition involved. Things like unpolluted air, plenty of hard work, long walks and physical activities outside, strong natural selection due to harsh conditions, not excluding a somehow better and more frugal diet than town people, especially with the famous hard and dark whole rye bread instead of wheat white bread. They made raw butter and raw cheese and also probably drank raw milk, which are anyway not as bad as some other foods such as industrial white sugar, something that must have been very rare in those secluded valleys.
They weren't as healthy as the Peruvians or the Maori, though, in terms of cavities and crooked teeth, though.
My guess is that they had good soil, and practiced good soil-building and soil conservation techniques. I believe Dr. Price says they conserved their soil very carefully in terraces.
-
I used a 3 week raw milk fast to be the clincher cure for my son's wrecked intestines to give him that fully formed stool after months on raw paleo omnivorous diet. Good thing he was not allergic to raw cow's milk at that time. And it worked. We got the results we were looking for. When he became constipated, we stopped. And his stools were fully formed.