Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Science => Topic started by: dair on December 13, 2018, 09:56:30 pm
-
https://www.thelocal.se/20170215/too-much-milk-will-shorten-your-life-especially-if-youre-a-woman-swedish-study
-
They say the risk for men is only 30% higher, but is still there.
-
Fuck, you people really hate dairy.
Just a thought, post a study on raw milk consumption next time.
-
In the case of osteoporosis Weston a price cites raw milk studies to the contrary in dairy consuming populouses including increased dental arches/development and lack of any kind of dental cavities.
This includes a wide variety of research materials not just indigenous communities.
-
Weston-Price is not considered too reliable. He, after all, came up with some nonsense ideas re dentistry, since disproven, such as the focal infection theory. He is also guilty of the Noble Savage theory nonsense.
Bear in mind that health-problems derived from raw dairy consumption are the most common a RVAF diet. Raw veggie-juice is 2nd, followed by others in descending order. I grant that some RVAFers seem to have no initial problems with raw dairy of any kind, but far more people have problems with the stuff.
-
Oh, and here is some scientific data linking osteoporosis to dairy consumption. Note that excess calcium is blamed, so the issue of raw vs pasteurised is irrelevant here, as both contain excessive calcium:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm
I wish I had come across that study as a child. As a kid, I was force-fed grains and dairy at school, and my foolish parents believed the lies that doctors told them about dairy consumption building stronger bones. Interesting point re a lower lifespan being caused by malabsorption of galactose. So, it's not casein or lactose per se that is the real problem, it seems. There is a more severe example of this, called galactosemia, where complete inability to digest galactose means a baby so afflicted suffers severe inflammation, and, within months, brain-damage and death, if it consumes any dairy, raw or pasteurised, whether from their mother's breasts or from cows' milk or whatever.
-
In the case of osteoporosis Weston a price cites raw milk studies to the contrary in dairy consuming populouses including increased dental arches/development and lack of any kind of dental cavities.
This includes a wide variety of research materials not just indigenous communities.
As I remember, the Swiss as studied by Price, had the highest incidence of dental carries of indigenous populations. granted the numbers weren't high, but compared to the tribes on the coast in South America where he inspected the corpses buried above ground, out of something like over a thousand, not one had a dental carrie.
My guess is that you're young, Paganboy. And that you've only been using milk for a limited amount of time. If so, just pay attention to how you fare over the months and years ahead. The other interesting thing you might do, is to visit the dairy where your milk is coming from. And while there pay attention to the visual and other signs of the health of cows. Look for mucous running out of their noses, and the general smell of the barns if kept indoors during these winter months. It might instruct you.
-
@van
Uh huh, good to note. I already have visited the farm, my age and first introduction to dairy is available in my journal.
-
For whatever it is worth, I thought so highly of AV when I first read his books back in the early 2000s. I still respect the man. He was definitely a trailblazer. I have long since abandoned his ideas regarding raw dairy, veggie juice and raw honey. While I might eat these things occasionally, I absolutely do not treat them as dietary cornerstones.
-
Thanks, fair enough
-
I forgot to add the relevant link. Here it is:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm
(also inserted into the relevant post above as well).
-
Oh, and here is some scientific data linking osteoporosis to dairy consumption. Note that excess calcium is blamed, so the issue of raw vs pasteurised is irrelevant here, as both contain excessive calcium:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm
I wish I had come across that study as a child. As a kid, I was force-fed grains and dairy at school, and my foolish parents believed the lies that doctors told them about dairy consumption building stronger bones. Interesting point re a lower lifespan being caused by malabsorption of galactose. So, it's not casein or lactose per se that is the real problem, it seems. There is a more severe example of this, called galactosemia, where complete inability to digest galactose means a baby so afflicted suffers severe inflammation, and, within months, brain-damage and death, if it consumes any dairy, raw or pasteurised, whether from their mother's breasts or from cows' milk or whatever.
You keep using pasteurized dairy studies to justify your bias against raw dairy. The researchers can "blame" whatever they want, that doesn't mean they're right, that's not how science works and you should know it. Even if the calcium itself is the problem, it could very well be that pasteurizing the dairy has an effect on the calcium molecules and how they're bound to other nutrients, as well as the absorption / fixing / elimination once they enter the body.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that humans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years without anyone ever blaming any diseases on them until pasteurization came along?
And before you bring up grains, it was well known that grains weren't healthy, which is why they were the food of poor people who couldn't afford more expensive foods. It's only in recent times that grains have been touted as health foods.
-
You keep using pasteurized dairy studies to justify your bias against raw dairy. The researchers can "blame" whatever they want, that doesn't mean they're right, that's not how science works and you should know it. Even if the calcium itself is the problem, it could very well be that pasteurizing the dairy has an effect on the calcium molecules and how they're bound to other nutrients, as well as the absorption / fixing / elimination once they enter the body.
The whole text was based on the dangers of excess calcium, not on the issue of raw vs pasteurised. Your suggestion that raw calcium is somehow magically protected from wearing the osteoblasts out is dodgy and not yet supported by any science.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that humans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years without anyone ever blaming any diseases on them until pasteurization came along?
Dead wrong. The whole point of the palaeolithic diet is that Neolithic consumption of grains and raw dairy led to vast ill-health in humans. Bear in mind that, prior to pasteurisation, dairy was mostly drunk in raw form. Also, bear in mind that scientific evidence shows that palaeolithic-era skeletons all had much stronger bones compared to Neolithic-era skeletons, yet palaeo HGs did not consume raw dairy unlike Neolithic-era HGs. So, clearly, raw dairy consumption leads to weaker bones. Also, consumption of grains and (mostly raw) dairy led to significantly decreased average height, plus may have been responsible for the c. 10-11% drop in average human brain-size.
And before you bring up grains, it was well known that grains weren't healthy, which is why they were the food of poor people who couldn't afford more expensive foods. It's only in recent times that grains have been touted as health foods.
Grains were consumed by all social classes in Neolithic times.
-
The whole text was based on the dangers of excess calcium, not on the issue of raw vs pasteurised.
Precisely my point. They use problems from pasteurized dairy to attack raw dairy.
Your suggestion that raw calcium is somehow magically protected from wearing the osteoblasts out is dodgy and not yet supported by any science.
There's plenty of science supporting it. Including Pottenger's vasts studies on cats, as well as Weston Price's studies on indigenous peoples. Not to mention the simple fact that all mammals fed their raw mother's milk develop much better bone and teeth health than those fed pasteurized or cooked milks. You claim this is because it's the mothers' milk, or milk from the same species. I'm sure this has benefits. But it could just as well be the cooking of the milk that causes most of the problems.
Dead wrong. The whole point of the palaeolithic diet is that Neolithic consumption of grains and raw dairy led to vast ill-health in humans. Bear in mind that, prior to pasteurisation, dairy was mostly drunk in raw form. Also, bear in mind that scientific evidence shows that palaeolithic-era skeletons all had much stronger bones compared to Neolithic-era skeletons, yet palaeo HGs did not consume raw dairy unlike Neolithic-era HGs. So, clearly, raw dairy consumption leads to weaker bones. Also, consumption of grains and (mostly raw) dairy led to significantly decreased average height, plus may have been responsible for the c. 10-11% drop in average human brain-size.
None of this proves that raw dairy was in any way part of the problem, that is simply an assumption you make on zero evidence. For all we know they could've been even worse off without the raw dairy and consuming more grains and cooked meats/vegetables instead.
Grains were consumed by all social classes in Neolithic times.
Hard to say if that was in fact the case. And even if it was, it might be in moderate amounts like we see in later periods.
-
Precisely my point. They use problems from pasteurized dairy to attack raw dairy.
No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue.
There's plenty of science supporting it. Including Pottenger's vasts studies on cats, as well as Weston Price's studies on indigenous peoples. Not to mention the simple fact that all mammals fed their raw mother's milk develop much better bone and teeth health than those fed pasteurized or cooked milks. You claim this is because it's the mothers' milk, or milk from the same species. I'm sure this has benefits. But it could just as well be the cooking of the milk that causes most of the problems.
Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/
https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/
Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk. Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible.
None of this proves that raw dairy was in any way part of the problem, that is simply an assumption you make on zero evidence. For all we know they could've been even worse off without the raw dairy and consuming more grains and cooked meats/vegetables instead.
. No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.
The http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/ fact is that if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.
Hard to say if that was in fact the case. And even if it was, it might be in moderate amounts like we see in later periods.
Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.
-
Since I eat a lot of raw dairy and find it very important for my wellbeing, I started to look at the calcium issue that you posted in this link. http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm It is indeed very interesting. Then I had a look at the recommended daily calcium intake, which seems to be 1000-1200mg per day, which equals around a liter of raw milk per day http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/calcium.html.
Whenever I am abroad I drink a liter of raw cows milk from (IMO) predominantly older A2 breeds with every meat meal, which means 2-3 times a day. Sometimes I drink more in between. To each meal I eat around 250 grams of raw cheese. So to summarize I have 3 liters of milk, plus 750g of cheese. So my daily calcium intake is 1200mgx3 + another lets say 1200x3 from the cheese. = 7200mg daily intake. When I am at home, I have less goat dairy but it seems that the calcium content is higher, so i might have a similar intake. Considering the fact that milk has vitamin D in it, the absorption should be ok. Then comes the calcium to phosphorus ratio (Ca/P), cows milk seems to be slightly higher than goat http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/05/is-milk-good-sheep-milk-dairy/. More on that below. Either way, thinking about it I have a extremely high daily calcium intake, so I thought if I should be concerned. But then I had a look at this:
https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/calcium-protein-strong-bones
What all the studies show is that the amount of calcium you excrete depends on more than just how much protein you eat. The amounts of phosphorus and magnesium in your diet, for instance, play a significant role. But even more importantly, there's simply a lot of normal variation in the amount of calcium individuals absorb from their food—some people just absorb more than others, for reasons researchers still don't understand. In fact, your ability to absorb calcium from your food is probably more important to your bone health than the total amount of calcium you take in.3
Results from the long-running Framingham Osteoporosis Study, also published in 2000, showed that eating a diet high in protein has a protective effect on your bones as you age. Among the 615 elderly people in the study, the ones who ate the most protein had the strongest bones, while the ones who ate the least protein had the weakest bones. And over the four-year study period, the people who ate the least protein lost significantly more bone mass than the people who ate the most protein. The connection held up regardless of age, weight, smoking habits, calcium intake and even estrogen use.6
More good news came in March 2002, when an important study showed that the combination of a high protein intake and calcium and vitamin D supplements significantlyslows bone loss in older adults. The double-blind study followed nearly 350 sixty-five-year-old men and women over a three-year period. All the participants ate their usual diet, but half were also randomly assigned to take a supplement containing vitamin D and 500 milligrams of calcium, while the others took a dummy pill. Neither the participants nor the researchers knew which group they were in. At the end of three years, the researchers found that among the people taking the calcium and vitamin D supplements, the ones who ate the most protein had the strongest bones and also absorbed the most calcium. Among the people taking the dummy pills, there was no connection between the amount of protein in the diet and the amount of bone loss.
What do all these studies show? They show that when a high-protein diet is combinedwith high calcium intake, calcium absorption is increased and bones stay stronger.
And here https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/calcium-full-story/
But as your body digests protein, it releases acids into the bloodstream, which the body neutralizes by drawing calcium from the bones. Following a high-protein diet for a few weeks probably won’t have much effect on bone strength. Doing it for a long time, though, could weaken bone. In the Nurses’ Health Study, for example, women who ate more than 95 grams of protein a day were 20 percent more likely to have broken a wrist over a 12-year period when compared to those who ate an average amount of protein (less than 68 grams a day). (13) But this area of research is still controversial, and findings have not been consistent. Some studies suggest increasing protein increases risk of fractures; others associate high-protein diets with increased bone mineral density. It is still unclear what level of protein intake provides the best protection against osteoporosis, and more research is needed.
I found quite some people which do a carnivore diet and eat/drink lots of raw dairy, and it seems to do them very well, like me. They heal all kinds of things. Now when looking at the above one could possibly conclude that a carnivore diet, which consists of a very high intake of animal protein, needs a very good amount of calcium to counterbalance the calcium excretion by eating a good amount of raw dairy or animal foods high in calcium.
So basically one could think that a high raw dairy intake on carnivore is no problem, but it is a problem when you eat a normal low animal protein diet, like many "normal" people do, as the general consent is that animal protein is unhealthy and vegetables, whole grains and fruit are better. Then you might be in trouble. None of the links posted from some of you take a high animal protein diet such as carnivore into account. So then it´s normal that many westerners drink lots of milk, but then have big issues like osteoporosis later, because of low meat consuption, as I think that vegetables are useless for calcium intake.
And if you now say that there is no different between raw milk and pasteurized milk in terms of (Ca/P) ratio and absorption, I recommend looking into this study: http://www.jbc.org/content/79/1/283.full.pdf There are, for example, HUGE differences between dried and raw milk. I also noticed that when I eat pasteurized joghurt, my bones sometimes crack, and I get tartar. So there is no way that somebody can tell me that raw milk and heat-treated milk is the same. So all these amazing studies showing how bad milk can in my optinion, be thrown in the trash!
-
epidemiologic studies are so all over the place. For instance, in what you quoted from one study ' ca. with vit D had a bone-strengthening effect. Well, when you consider Most people are deficient in Vit D, who's to say what really was going on?
It's very easy to interpret what you want.
More and more low carb researchers are saying don't take ca. supplements due to its nature to combine with the plaque on your arteries. Look into ca. scan for ca. deposits on your arterial walls. A Hotly debated subject. Worth researching. Proponents say it's the number one test for heart disease. I tend to agree. But in fairness, the ca. is presumably laid down when there is inflammation.
-
Vitamins are much more important than minerals esp in humans. Vegans get lots of minerals in their diet and their bones suffer much more than an omnivore. What they need are complex fat soluble vitamins. AAs are also important in this regard.
That thing about calcium being leached out of the bones to counter balance the acid-forming pH of meat has been debunked several times. I don't have the sources now but It worths googling it.
-
There are of course many other problems with raw dairy, such as the hormone factor and the unbalanced calcium:magnesium ratio. In my own case, I found that dairy consumption greatly weakened my teeth pre-RPD diet(in fact I would have lost all my teeth in another year if I had not switched to an RPD diet), and that a diet consisting only of raw animal foods led to a sudden looseness in my teeth after just 3 weeks on it.
-
No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue.
Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.
Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/
https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/
This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?
We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.
Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk.
How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.
The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.
They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.
You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.
Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume). Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.
Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible..
How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers?
No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.
The http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/ fact is that if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.
They did. Again, Weston Price.
Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.
Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.
In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.
-
There are of course many other problems with raw dairy, such as the hormone factor and the unbalanced calcium:magnesium ratio. In my own case, I found that dairy consumption greatly weakened my teeth pre-RPD diet(in fact I would have lost all my teeth in another year if I had not switched to an RPD diet), and that a diet consisting only of raw animal foods led to a sudden looseness in my teeth after just 3 weeks on it.
In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I had the same problem when consuming vasts amounts of what I thought at the time was raw dairy, but it might not have been. Some of my teeth became loose and I could move them a little. After stopping the consumption of dairy, the looseness in my teeth went away.
My teeth continued to get worse since then, on a diet of mainly meats and fruit, but the looseness hasn't returned.
I intend to try dairy again once I can find a reliable source and be certain as to the quality of it.
Another thing that might have damaged my teeth was the copious amounts of lemon juice I was consuming, sometimes up to 1 liter or more a day. Although I stopped that a while prior to stopping the dairy consumption.
-
Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.
Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.
This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?
We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.
Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy. Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all. Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.
How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.
The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.
They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.
You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.
The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans. Cats may be mammals but do not have much in common with humans. The studies also did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr. In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.
Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume)
Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.
Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.
Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans. Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed. And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within a 2 year period - human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:-
http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf
How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers?
In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption.
No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.
They did. Again, Weston Price.
*sigh* The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.
Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.
In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.
All classes, even up to middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.
-
By "looseness" I mean, my teeth were on the verge of falling off. Indeed, as I switched to eating raw meat, the raw meat hurt my teeth so badly that I was forced to age the meat a few days. I also had to cut the raw meat into tiny slices and just swallow without chewing.
I do accept that some people thrive on raw dairy. it is just that there are a lot of people who do better without it.
-
Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.
They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.
Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy.
Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.
Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all.
And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?
Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.
It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class.
The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans.
How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.
The studies also did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr. In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.
This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.
The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.
Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.
No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.
Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans.
You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.
You probably don't even realize it, but you're actually making my point when you say cats and humans have pretty similar digestive systems.
Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed.
That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.
And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within a 2 year period -
Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.
human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:- http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf
I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.
Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.
In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption. *sigh*
Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.
The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.
They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.
All classes, even up to middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.
Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.
-
"Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all."
autism much?
A page from the ww2l members area
Raw Milk is Safe But Beware of Big Commercial Milks
July 29, 2014 admin Subscriber Content
Viewed 12 times since 15 July 2018
Raw Milks are Safe and Nutritious but Beware of Big Commercial Milks
Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Okay, milk. Delicious, wonderful milk. Milk is one of the most nutritious foods there is.
Besides the egg, it is the most easily digestible. It only takes 6 - 10 hours to digest - raw milk of course.
Once it’s pasteurized, 50% of the calcium is cauterized. That means it’s hardened into a substance that can’t be utilized to do what it’s supposed to do in the body, including building healthy tissue.
It has a tendency to build brittle bones and dry tissue when you’re drinking pasteurized milk.
Milk is the most easily digested food, next to eggs. It only takes 6 - 10 hours. It’s already liquid, so the body doesn’t have to do much with hydrochloric acid or any of the digestive juices. What it will do is infiltrate with bacteria and as I said earlier, bacteria is the main process of digestion so all it has to do is infiltrate it.
Egg is the most digestible and that digests in a matter of 27 minutes. Again, it doesn’t require any hydrochloric acid or digestive juices to pre-digest it, to break larger particles of food down into smaller particles of food so that bacteria can eat it - consume it.
And of course, their waste is our food.
If you buy regular milk from a big milk company, you’ll notice that they say it’s milk, fat-free. That’s because they will take the milk, they’ll remove all animal fat from it and they will put oils and esters in place of it. They’re usually vegetable oils, and remember what I said about vegetable oils - they will crystallize and harden in the body. So when you’re drinking a very well-known, famous brand of milk, what they’ve basically done is taken the milk, they’ve deprived it of protein and they’ve deprived it of the fats. And it’s a blue liquid. It has no relationship to milk at all and it will have a very long shelf-life.
So then what they do is they take dolomite - mined calcium, calcium concentrated rock - and they shovel it into the vats to turn this blue fluid back into a white fluid. It’s all a hoax: there is no relationship to milk at all in it. Plus they use hydrogenated vegetable oils which are plastic. So you have something that is totally foreign and chemical, and it isn’t milk at all.
The only place you can get totally pure raw milk is from a farmer who produces raw milk. There are a few states you can get it commercially in stores, but not many: California is one, and you can go into some stores… Whole Foods is a joke again. Whole Foods stopped carrying raw milk in California when they could. They say it’s an insurance issue. It has nothing to do with insurance, they’ve carried insurance before. I talked to the insurance company and they are very willing to continue to insure that food, just like they insure the meats and everything else. So, raw milk is a wonderful food, it helps calm the body. The cream in it is the only fat that completely nutrifies the brain and nervous system. Butter can do it about two thirds, but raw cream and milk does it 100%.
-
There are sources to support the claims made by ajanous regarding bone health and so on in this free pdf
https://www.wewant2live.com/shop/petition-and-report-in-favor-of-natural-milk-pdf/
-
'fifty percent of the calcium in milk is cauterized when past...' where does he get that number? Are there labs on this report? AV repeatedly made similar claims without ever showing where he got the information. Since most of us know the word cauterized from movies or stories about how in years past wounds were cauterized on say a battlefield, the image/word carries weight and emotional strength.
Until I ever see any conclusive proof backing up these claims AV makes, I will simply repeat my claims that AV made up anything to back up his beliefs. And suggest to others here to suspect the same.
Also question his statement that cream is the ONLY, I repeat ONLY fat that nutrifies the brain and nervous system. Come on think about this statement in the context of those peoples who don't keep cows. Again, 'we' want so badly to believe him because we want so badly to have the Answer.
-
They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys. By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.
Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.
I had simply pointd out the obvious that meat is not the same thing as dairy, whether raw or cooked.
And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?
A foolish analogy as meat is not the same thing as raw dairy. Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems.
It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class.
Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.
How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.
It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals. And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium. Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue.
This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.
Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful as 100% of the diet.
The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.
Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.
No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.
Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats.
You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.
Irrelevant, really. What we need to convince you is a study of cats fed on cat milk compared to cats fed on cows milk, all raw.
[/quote]
That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.
It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful. For example, I have heard of mothers transmitting diseases to their babies via their breastmilk.
Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.
Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection. It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health.
I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.
Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.
Cows milk is a ruminant milk. To get healthier milk, one would have to drink chimpanzee milk as a human. As regards babies, most humans gradually develop more and more lactose intolerance over time as adults, as adult mammals are not supposed to be drinkng milk, however raw, past infancy.
Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.
Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health. I am suspicious of WP as he was very selective in his photos. I mean, given a lack of dentists and the incidence of disease and famine, it is impossible for more than a few HGs to have had perfect teeth throughout their lives.
[/quote]
They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.[/quote] It at least shows that raw dairy is so useless as a health-food that it cannot counteract the consumption of cooked animal foods.
Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.
This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago. And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.
-
AV was a fraud to a partial extent. When challenged, he made up claims about doing a multitude of studies showing how healthy raw animal foods were, and when asked to produce them, claimed they had all been burned in a fire. I mean, this is a guy who borrowed from the bible( re 40 days and 40 nights in the desert!).
-
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys.
Epidemiological studies are pretty much the same as surveys.
And again, it's all from cooked dairy consumption.
By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.
No. Pottenger's studies clearly proved that raw dairy is health giving while cooked dairy harms health and causes all sorts of disease and degradation, which intensifies with each generation. You can say it's only so for cats, and not humans, but you can't say cooked and raw are the same.
Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems.
Lol? We are talking about food consumption, not grafts and transplants.
Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.
Pretty irrelevant. But in any case, was this cooked dairy?
As for the casein and wolves milk, that's just a hypothesis with no backing. I also believe the story of children raised by wolves is likely fake, but not for that reason.
It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals.
Nobody claims that cats are humans. Pottenger certainly never did. It is interesting, however, how you bring up animal studies when they suit your biases, but discard them when they don't.
And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. "focus" is irrelevant when all the source data is coming from populations consuming cooked dairy only.
Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue.
Are you now saying that raw dairy is worse for health than cooked dairy?
Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful as 100% of the diet.
Not harmful, insufficient. Some people think drinking water is good for health. It would be ludicrous to propose that they show a 100% water diet is good.
Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.
The studies showed that cooked milk causes disease and degeneration while raw milk prevents disease and slowly cures it and regenerates health.
Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats.
Cats were not domesticated to be kept as pets. People back then were much more practical. If they kept an animal around, there was a material, tangible goal to it. The whole notion of keeping a pet for its own sake didn't develop in great numbers until the 19th century, and it didn't affect the masses until the 20th century .
It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful.
Sure. but if the animal's health is only a little bit worse, but you get much more healthgiving milk out of it, then it could very well be worth the tradeoff.
Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection.
I didn't say its the same thing. However, there is the possibility that it's even better in some cases. For instance, do you prefer to eat wild leaves with their high toxicity, or domesticated varieties where breeding has significantly lowered the toxin loads?
It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health.
By that definition all human activities are unnatural, including hunting wild game. It's not simply the being natural or artificial that makes something improve our health or damage it. It's a little more complicated than that.
Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health.
Again, Pottenger's studies showed that no, cooked dairy helps cause tooth decay whereas raw dairy does the opposite.
This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago.
I didn't say they ate no meats. But they ate plenty of grain. Keep in mind that the best quality meat, such as wild deer, was only for the rich.
And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.
No.
-
@van
quote
" The cream in it is the only fat that ***completely*** nutrifies the brain and nervous system. Butter can do it about two thirds, but raw cream and milk does it 100%."
In the short time I have looked into AV I have seen far more misquotes targeted toward him then accurate ones.
-
Ok,' completely'. No matter, still the same delusion.
-
Im curious about your total daily macro intake norawnofun? This is an impressive number of calories from dairy alone. What else do you eat and how often do you train?
Since I eat a lot of raw dairy and find it very important for my wellbeing, I started to look at the calcium issue that you posted in this link. http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm It is indeed very interesting. Then I had a look at the recommended daily calcium intake, which seems to be 1000-1200mg per day, which equals around a liter of raw milk per day http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/calcium.html.
Whenever I am abroad I drink a liter of raw cows milk from (IMO) predominantly older A2 breeds with every meat meal, which means 2-3 times a day. Sometimes I drink more in between. To each meal I eat around 250 grams of raw cheese. So to summarize I have 3 liters of milk, plus 750g of cheese. So my daily calcium intake is 1200mgx3 + another lets say 1200x3 from the cheese. = 7200mg daily intake. When I am at home, I have less goat dairy but it seems that the calcium content is higher, so i might have a similar intake. Considering the fact that milk has vitamin D in it, the absorption should be ok. Then comes the calcium to phosphorus ratio (Ca/P), cows milk seems to be slightly higher than goat http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/05/is-milk-good-sheep-milk-dairy/. More on that below. Either way, thinking about it I have a extremely high daily calcium intake, so I thought if I should be concerned. But then I had a look at this:
https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/calcium-protein-strong-bones
And here https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/calcium-full-story/
I found quite some people which do a carnivore diet and eat/drink lots of raw dairy, and it seems to do them very well, like me. They heal all kinds of things. Now when looking at the above one could possibly conclude that a carnivore diet, which consists of a very high intake of animal protein, needs a very good amount of calcium to counterbalance the calcium excretion by eating a good amount of raw dairy or animal foods high in calcium.
So basically one could think that a high raw dairy intake on carnivore is no problem, but it is a problem when you eat a normal low animal protein diet, like many "normal" people do, as the general consent is that animal protein is unhealthy and vegetables, whole grains and fruit are better. Then you might be in trouble. None of the links posted from some of you take a high animal protein diet such as carnivore into account. So then it´s normal that many westerners drink lots of milk, but then have big issues like osteoporosis later, because of low meat consuption, as I think that vegetables are useless for calcium intake.
And if you now say that there is no different between raw milk and pasteurized milk in terms of (Ca/P) ratio and absorption, I recommend looking into this study: http://www.jbc.org/content/79/1/283.full.pdf There are, for example, HUGE differences between dried and raw milk. I also noticed that when I eat pasteurized joghurt, my bones sometimes crack, and I get tartar. So there is no way that somebody can tell me that raw milk and heat-treated milk is the same. So all these amazing studies showing how bad milk can in my optinion, be thrown in the trash!
-
A little off topic.
This picture was made by Yuri in London
-
what? how round they are
-
Im curious about your total daily macro intake norawnofun? This is an impressive number of calories from dairy alone. What else do you eat and how often do you train?
I never track my macros, don´t care much about that tbh. I do almost daily simple youtube exercise, no proper work-out. No time really. During my half a year carnivore experiment (still counting) I was eating meats such as beef, chicken and home cured bacon. Plus eggs, raw goat cheese and raw goat milk mainly, plus joghurt if i didnt have raw dairy. I stopped lamb. I did a 2 day water fast now, broke it today with beef, lard and an egg. The goal is to no longer do dairy until my stomach acid is back to how it was years ago. I noticed that digestion was easier without dairy today, time will tell. I´m also curious about my tartar, if that will go away. I got a lot when I ate pasteurized joghurt. Another issue was the goat dairy, it used to do me well initially, but cow dairy is way better for me. Goat milk is more alkaline, I think that was the problem as I drank it with every acidic meat meal. Plus, AV used to say that goat milk is good for obese and sluggish people, and cow is for underweight and kinda nervous ppl. In my case he was right about that. Plus its not fatty enough. Therefore I concluded goat is useless to me, for vegans it might be a good addition to their plant based diet but not for me.
The plan is incorporate more steaks, since I always ate ground due to low HCI, have more tougher meats and try liver and bone marrow (raw) again. And have butter plus hard cheeses (since some like parmigiano romano contain 0 carbs) I want my stomach acid to be top notch again. And I think the carbs in dairy was hindering that. Used to have issues with butter, but no longer I found. I think the carnivore diet gave me back certain things to digest saturated fats again.
-
chew your steaks till liquid. Enjoy the process. Also, as mentioned, get a really sharp knife and wetstone to sharpen as you go, and slice as thin as possible, as you chew and eat fat during the meal. Thinly sliced meat has a better chance of becoming liquid in the mouth and tastes excellent stimulating digestive juices in the stomach.
Never ate lard ( rendered fat ). So can't say it will be a hindrance, but experiment, it may cause some sluggishness for raw folks.
-
@van I am chewing as much as I can, taking it easy till my body says stop. I notice that my stomach is working more and my (i think) pancreas are much more active. Did you notice any dairy withdrawal/detox symptoms like eye discarge, red skin and so forth? And how long did they last? I plan to get into keto and see how that feels. I am still not sure if to drink with meals or not.
-
Epidemiological studies are pretty much the same as surveys.
And again, it's all from cooked dairy consumption.
I already pointed out that the issue was poor bone-health caused by excess calcium consumption, the issue of raw vs cooked is not just irrelevant here, it is bogus. You see, the calcium in raw dairy is far more absorbable than with pasteurised dairy, thus making raw dairy far MORE likely to cause poor bone-health than pasteurised dairy.
No. Pottenger's studies clearly proved that raw dairy is health giving while cooked dairy harms health and causes all sorts of disease and degradation, which intensifies with each generation. You can say it's only so for cats, and not humans, but you can't say cooked and raw are the same.
Wrong again. I had already pointed out re Pottenger`s meat study that the inclusion of raw dairy did not counteract the presence of cooked animal food given in the test as well. If raw dairy were genuinely healthy to cats, then one would have expected some evidence that raw dairy could counteract the effects a lot.
Lol? We are talking about food consumption, not grafts and transplants.
Your absurd contrast was simply countered by my taking the piss as well. Anyway, the point is that raw dairy of whatever kind is designed specifically to feed the infants of one particular species. As we see re humans, adults gradually lose the ability to digest lactose as they get older, anyway, so that is another factor. Raw cows`dairy is best for calves below the age of weaning and that is that.
Pretty irrelevant. But in any case, was this cooked dairy?
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=120246 Yes, it was from raw cows milk. Pasteurisation kills the stuff.
Nobody claims that cats are humans. Pottenger certainly never did.
Pottenger implied it, and you made all sorts of bogus claims that cats were just like humans.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. "focus" is irrelevant when all the source data is coming from populations consuming cooked dairy only.
The issue of raw vs cooked is only 1 issue among many. In this case, the focus is on excessive calcium. Now since calcium from raw dairy is more absorbable than from pasteurised dairy due to lack of heat, one can convincingly argue that raw dairy does not provide good bone-health at all, given the various studies. That is, so far, no evidence shows that pasteurising dairy makes the calcium in it highly toxic in particular , to bone-health.
Are you now saying that raw dairy is worse for health than cooked dairy?
In this one instance, re excess calcium, yes.
The studies showed that cooked milk causes disease and degeneration while raw milk prevents disease and slowly cures it and regenerates health.
Wrong. The studies showed that including raw dairy did not counter the negative effects of cooked animal food.
Cats were not domesticated to be kept as pets. People back then were much more practical. If they kept an animal around, there was a material, tangible goal to it. The whole notion of keeping a pet for its own sake didn't develop in great numbers until the 19th century, and it didn't affect the masses until the 20th century .
That is, of course, nonsense, as cats were kept as pets in ancient egypt and there is solid evidence for cats being kept as pets 1000s of years before that:- https://myria.com/animals-when-were-cats-first-kept-as-pets
Sure. but if the animal's health is only a little bit worse, but you get much more healthgiving milk out of it, then it could very well be worth the tradeoff.
You are, as usual, missing the point. If the raw milk is even slightly infected, well, it`s very easy to get infections from raw dairy. Not worth the risk.
I didn't say its the same thing. However, there is the possibility that it's even better in some cases. For instance, do you prefer to eat wild leaves with their high toxicity, or domesticated varieties where breeding has significantly lowered the toxin loads?
No, human dysgenics has always been a bad idea. Humans do not eat raw leaves as a staple of their diets so that example is bogus. Also, the excess sugar in domesticated fruits is bad for us whereas wild varieties have far less sugar so do not contribute to obesity, diabetes etc.
By that definition all human activities are unnatural, including hunting wild game. It's not simply the being natural or artificial that makes something improve our health or damage it. It's a little more complicated than that.
Grossly wrong example as hunting wild game is perfectly natural - our palaeo ancestors did it, so do many other wild species
Again, Pottenger's studies showed that no, cooked dairy helps cause tooth decay whereas raw dairy does the opposite.
Wrong. Taken from skeptvet:- "Yes, Pottenger’s study comes up often in discussions of raw diets. Though not bad for his era, his work with the cats is pretty sloppy by modern standards, and there is not enough information in his published writings to determine crucial things like whether there were differences other than cooking between the food the two groups received, whether the groups of cats themselves were different in terms of condition, health, age, sex, and all sorts of other relevant variables. And even from the information that is out there, it is clear that neither group received an adequate diet, especially in terms of taurine, not discovered to be an essential amino acid for cats until after Pottenger’s time. So his work cannot legitimately be regarded as scientific evidence in favor of raw diets, though it is often cited as such."
No.
Easily disproven with links:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_dining_in_the_Roman_Empire (most Romans would have eaten 70 percent at least of their diet in the form of cereals and beans.
https://healthandfitnesshistory.com/ancient-nutrition/medieval-european-nutrition/ shows that upper classes also ate lots of grains, and so on and on.
-
I already pointed out that the issue was poor bone-health caused by excess calcium consumption, the issue of raw vs cooked is not just irrelevant here, it is bogus. You see, the calcium in raw dairy is far more absorbable than with pasteurised dairy, thus making raw dairy far MORE likely to cause poor bone-health than pasteurised dairy.
The issue of raw vs cooked is only 1 issue among many. In this case, the focus is on excessive calcium. Now since calcium from raw dairy is more absorbable than from pasteurised dairy due to lack of heat, one can convincingly argue that raw dairy does not provide good bone-health at all, given the various studies. That is, so far, no evidence shows that pasteurising dairy makes the calcium in it highly toxic in particular , to bone-health.
How dumb can you get? We've been through this time and again, you can say whatever you want is "the issue" or "the focus", but when all you can show is a correlation between cooked dairy consumption and bone problems, that in no way implicates raw dairy.
Wrong. The studies showed that including raw dairy did not counter the negative effects of cooked animal food.
Quite the opposite.
That is, of course, nonsense, as cats were kept as pets in ancient egypt and there is solid evidence for cats being kept as pets 1000s of years before that:- https://myria.com/animals-when-were-cats-first-kept-as-pets
It seems you don't understand the difference between pet keeping and domestication. Cows are domesticated animals, but they're not pets. Likewise, whoever wrote the study is calling cats "pets" with no evidence whatsoever that they would be considered pets. In fact in the article itself it mentions that people kept cats not as pets, but as a means to control rodent infestation. Which makes sense because mice are primarily grain eaters, and ancient egypt and china were the first big mostly grain fed societies.
Wrong. Taken from skeptvet:- "Yes, Pottenger’s study comes up often in discussions of raw diets. Though not bad for his era, his work with the cats is pretty sloppy by modern standards, and there is not enough information in his published writings to determine crucial things like whether there were differences other than cooking between the food the two groups received, whether the groups of cats themselves were different in terms of condition, health, age, sex, and all sorts of other relevant variables. And even from the information that is out there, it is clear that neither group received an adequate diet, especially in terms of taurine, not discovered to be an essential amino acid for cats until after Pottenger’s time. So his work cannot legitimately be regarded as scientific evidence in favor of raw diets, though it is often cited as such."
That's written by people who will tell you to feed your pets dry pellets of processed food. The foods were the same whether raw or cooked, so the issue IS cooking, and whatever "nutritional deficiencies" cats had on the cooked diet were caused by the cooking, not by eating different foods. Likewise, cats were selected at random for each group, so keeping track of age, sex, health condition and so forth is irrelevant as it would even out over the 900 cats that were used for the experiments.
Easily disproven with links:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_dining_in_the_Roman_Empire (most Romans would have eaten 70 percent at least of their diet in the form of cereals and beans.
https://healthandfitnesshistory.com/ancient-nutrition/medieval-european-nutrition/ shows that upper classes also ate lots of grains, and so on and on.
The romans were a decadent, degenerate society, so it could be that they were foolish enough to prefer grain over meat. In medieval europe, however, meat was regarded as the superior food. Even your own link mentions that people didn't eat more meat than they normally did because it was expensive, and not due to a concern about health.
-
@van I am chewing as much as I can, taking it easy till my body says stop. I notice that my stomach is working more and my (i think) pancreas are much more active. Did you notice any dairy withdrawal/detox symptoms like eye discarge, red skin and so forth? And how long did they last? I plan to get into keto and see how that feels. I am still not sure if to drink with meals or not.
no withdrawals for me when I stopped. Not sure what you mean by drinking with meals, milk or water? I would suggest neither.
-
I meant drinking water. Might try sparkling again. But I´ll see how it goes. So far no stool since 3 days. Never had that without feeling uncomfortable, seems a lot of the meat and fat is absorbed.
-
for most it normalizes out and once a day will eventually be the norm. I went through the same.
-
How dumb can you get? We've been through this time and again, you can say whatever you want is "the issue" or "the focus", but when all you can show is a correlation between cooked dairy consumption and bone problems, that in no way implicates raw dairy.
No , I also showed a direct correlation between introduction of raw dairy consumption in the Neolithic era and a corresponding drop in bone-health/bone-strength in Neolithic-era peoples. Also, you cannot see the forest for the trees, as you keep on whining about raw vs pasteurised when many other issues exist. Take the calcium issue, since calcium is more absorbable when in raw dairy, it follows logically that it is more harmful as regards excess calcium than pasteurised dairy. Then there are the hormones in raw dairy, and the fact that becoming infected from raw dairy consumption is far more likely than re consumption of pasteurised dairy.
Quite the opposite.
Pure drivel on your part. I had already pointed out links re Pottenger's meat study which proved my point.
It seems you don't understand the difference between pet keeping and domestication. Cows are domesticated animals, but they're not pets. Likewise, whoever wrote the study is calling cats "pets" with no evidence whatsoever that they would be considered pets. In fact in the article itself it mentions that people kept cats not as pets, but as a means to control rodent infestation. Which makes sense because mice are primarily grain eaters, and ancient egypt and china were the first big mostly grain fed societies.
Quite dumb. I already pointed to evidence of cats being kept as pets as far back as 9500 years ago at least. People would not put mere domesticated animals into the same grave as their human owner, but they would indeed put that human owner's favourite pet in the same grave. Also, cats aren't ideal hunters of rats, for example - that is why people who want to kill rats prefer to use terriers, among other more suitable dog breeds for that purpose.Oh, and Ancient Egyptians kept all sorts of animals as pets(such as hippos,crocodiles etc.:-
https://www.ancient.eu/article/875/pets-in-ancient-egypt/ . Hippos and the like do NOT make suitable domesticated animals. Oh, and the ancient egyptians did not only regard cats as pets but also had an egyptian cat-goddess, Bastet. Oh, and here's more:-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/12/16/cats-became-pets-much-earlier-than-thought-according-to-neolithic-fossils/
That's written by people who will tell you to feed your pets dry pellets of processed food. The foods were the same whether raw or cooked, so the issue IS cooking, and whatever "nutritional deficiencies" cats had on the cooked diet were caused by the cooking, not by eating different foods. Likewise, cats were selected at random for each group, so keeping track of age, sex, health condition and so forth is irrelevant as it would even out over the 900 cats that were used for the experiments.
Regardless of what they believe in, they have the right to criticise various dodgy aspects of the studies.
The romans were a decadent, degenerate society, so it could be that they were foolish enough to prefer grain over meat. In medieval europe, however, meat was regarded as the superior food. Even your own link mentions that people didn't eat more meat than they normally did because it was expensive, and not due to a concern about health.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_cuisine#Class_constraints In this link, it shows that the upper classes in the Middle-Ages mainly went in for meat and many other foods due to the extra variety signifying higher social status, as well as the greater cost, not because meat was viewed then as being superior. Oh, and the romans were only decadent and degenerate near the end of the empire.
-
I never track my macros, don´t care much about that tbh. I do almost daily simple youtube exercise, no proper work-out. No time really. During my half a year carnivore experiment (still counting) I was eating meats such as beef, chicken and home cured bacon. Plus eggs, raw goat cheese and raw goat milk mainly, plus joghurt if i didnt have raw dairy. I stopped lamb. I did a 2 day water fast now, broke it today with beef, lard and an egg. The goal is to no longer do dairy until my stomach acid is back to how it was years ago. I noticed that digestion was easier without dairy today, time will tell. I´m also curious about my tartar, if that will go away. I got a lot when I ate pasteurized joghurt. Another issue was the goat dairy, it used to do me well initially, but cow dairy is way better for me. Goat milk is more alkaline, I think that was the problem as I drank it with every acidic meat meal. Plus, AV used to say that goat milk is good for obese and sluggish people, and cow is for underweight and kinda nervous ppl. In my case he was right about that. Plus its not fatty enough. Therefore I concluded goat is useless to me, for vegans it might be a good addition to their plant based diet but not for me.
The plan is incorporate more steaks, since I always ate ground due to low HCI, have more tougher meats and try liver and bone marrow (raw) again. And have butter plus hard cheeses (since some like parmigiano romano contain 0 carbs) I want my stomach acid to be top notch again. And I think the carbs in dairy was hindering that. Used to have issues with butter, but no longer I found. I think the carnivore diet gave me back certain things to digest saturated fats again.
I'm also trying to improve my meat digestion. I have problems digesting meat or fat (not sure). What I'm planning to do is quite the opposite to you. I'm planning on pateeing my meat and avoid eating steaks.
My main fat source is butter. I would like to try beef fat or any other source of fat such as suet but It is not possible.
How do you know you are not digesting the meat right? The feeling I have is a weight on my stomach for at least 4 hours. I'm also gassy and bloated all day. Even that I'm zero carb.
-
I had the worst digestion when I only ate meat now, even fatty cuts, so I stopped that experiment and re-evalutated everything. I think the mistake that I did was that I ate way too many dairy carbs and too less fats. The problem is that I can´t get any quality animal fats here. So I can either have lard, dairy, tallow, goose fat and bone marrow. I tried eating goose fat by the spoon, its disgusting, same as lard, its pointless. Even fatty cheap cuts of meat didn´t do the trick. And I can´t eat bone marrow all day long, too costly, so I need to stick to dairy for now. But I did 2 mistakes here
1. I ate raw Goat dairy which is watery, alkaline, lower in fat and super expensive. And im sure it interfered with my acidic meat digestion. So I stopped.
2. The other mistake I made was that I focused on soft cheeses and milk. My tartar was growing because I was eating lots of pasteurized cows joghurt and other soft or liquid dairy. So this is all very high in carbs and low in fats. I changed plans and bought the highest fat cheese that you can get, which is hard cheeses, or something like cheddar. Which has round 35 percent fat and 0.1 carbs. The other high fat dairy would be mascarpone, which is cheese made out of cream. 40 percent fat and around 2 carbs. And obviously butter, which is super high in fat (around 80 and has 0.1 carbs). My plan is to go into keto, which is around 20 carbs max per day. Within 2 days of changing the fat/carb ratio I already see my tartar getting less. So by going the keto way I let my body adjust more to digesting fats, which was impossible before since I ate too high dairy carbs.
And I also think, but I still need to experiment, that I need to drink water with my foods. For years I didn´t really do that, but I think that one of the main issues why my HCI is not top notch is that the food is not liquid enough, so it is not moving fast enough, therefore not much HCI will be produced as the food is "stuck".
You can try and pate your foods, i used to eat plenty of raw ground beef when I was still in a shitty state. But I always mixed some vegetables or herbs in it. Not a good idea. I´d recommend eating carnivore, so animal foods only until your HCI get´s better. Doing that since half a year and saw huge improvements, which I hope will become better by applying the 2 things mentioned above. And I know that I did not digest the meat well, because I was bloated, constipated like hell, which resulted in anger, brainless thinking, shitty sleep and weight loss. But you can try the suggestion of sabertooth. Do a 2-3 day water fast and break it with a very small piece of fatty meat (don´t overeat). But if you cook it I´d recommend drink water with it as it would be too dry.
Edit. Instead of making a pate to your meat you could try and make the cuts more tender by either adding rock salt or ground pineapple juice on top. As seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahe9xtwwUlA
-
@norawnofun
I am losing brain cells reading this comment, what a toxic forum.
You were incredibly fresh raw fat deficient.
1. You should NEVER eat pasteurized dairy or cooked fats
2. even verifiably raw cheese must be eaten with at least an equal amount of raw never frozen fat
3. drinking water with food dilutes digestive juices horribly.
4. rock salt is poison
5. fasting is fucking pointless.
6. goat dairy is very high in protein and very low in fat.
7. tartar on teeth/tongue is detox
Have you read the recipe for living without disease yet?
-
Err, fasting is a very good idea indeed for those transitioning from cooked to raw, so as to detox the accumulated poisons. I personally found raw goat dairy to be "less worse" than raw cows' dairy, and it is possible, imo, for a few people to adapt to non-cows' dairy even if they do badly on the latter. I also disagree with number 2.
-
I read and have both of aajonuses books. Were an interesting read, but I don´t follow all his advice religiously and I don´t try to be too paranoid of what I do. If you get too much trapped into your diet and study your behaviour 24/7 like a freak and think about it every day, then it´s not a healthy thing to do and in my opinion you will trap yourself in the mindset of being sick and you will hardly heal. The problem is also when people only listen to other peoples advice rather than listen to their own body. It´s no different than with a vegan diet. These people listen to 'experts' too and still don´t heal, rather than listen to their own body and realize that their health is slowly going down the drain.
You can have an impeccable diet, but if your mindset is not positive you cannot heal. One of my best friends sister has bone cancer, metastases all over her body, she tried many things, but the only thing that made it regress is talking to a psychologist. When I am at home I don´t do well, when I am abroad I am happy, gain weight and feel good, even though I do dietary exceptions, sometimes not the healthy ones. I strongly believe that being in a good mental state makes the microbiome work better and more efficient, and makes proper detoxification possible. So yes, I know pasteurized dairy and cooking ain´t good, drinking water during eating is bad, salt is apparently poison and so forth. But then again I could counterargue that the vegetables you eat all have anti-nutrients in them, so you should not touch them either. AV recommended nightshades, fruits high in sugar, gluten breads and each one of them contains something malicious. I do support studying other 'experts' advise, but I never recommend applying their rules without first consulting your own body. If I were to follow AVs or your advise without thinking, I might end up like Tyler wasting away my teeth due to his dairy intolerance. To say tartar is a ONLY a positive thing is dangerous advice. The only thing I would agree with on the points you made is about raw fats. For ex I find that raw cream is perfect for me only.
-
Maybe you should re read them then because you are obviously lost.
Ajanous NEVER reccomended eating bread unless you were a quote un quote "wife beater" he has stated the one time he did it in his book he had not eaten it in 15 something years and that was because when he did his son was supposedly in a paralyzing car accident.
fruits high in sugar, really? The guy ate fruit once every 3 days maximum and when he did he ALWAYS ate fruit unripe or mostly fruit low in sugar
(8 tbsp max), he allegedly used to have juvenile diabetes before the diet.
If anything he was incredibly cautious about sugar and talks about the effects of AGES (for example in honey) quite alot in his workshops and books.
Since when did I say I eat whole vegetables?
If you only do well on cream its probably because your farmer is freezing your butter but refrigerating your cream like mine is.
Frozen butter is TOXIC even when it is raw to me. If that is the case buy cream, wait for it to warm then get a small blender and make it into butter yourself (frozen fat is trash imo).
The misinformation I see on this forum about Ajanous especially is just phenomenal.
edit* I never said tartar on teeth is "only positive" you are moving from one extreme to the next.
-
look, it's obvious he's your guru,, but not everyone else here feels the same way. I'd like it if you could simply state your ideas (AV's ) and not care so much whether others here want to listen or not.
-
@tyler
2 can be revoked if you have a solid gut and do it in small amounts dispersed like ajanous does to prevent constipation but most people probably will never do that unless they are very nauseous and sick people.
About fasting, there are so many foods to eat instead of starving yourself its without saying just useless.
Unless you are nauseous or sick and your body is telling you NOT to eat its terrible advice to ever fast, especially for many people like me who were thin as thin on the ropes so much that they dare to find this forum and eat raw meat.
The only other time you fast is when you regularly consume cooked food because it poison.
options instead of fasting
egg (one every hour),
cheese (1tsp every 30 min),
blood (high in enzymes)
certain juices or certain fruit (also high in enzymes)
caviar,
AV milkshakes (sipping 2 ounces or less every 20 minutes),
-
Maybe you should re read them then because you are obviously lost.
Ajanous NEVER reccomended eating bread unless you were a quote un quote "wife beater" he has stated the one time he did it in his book he had not eaten it in 15 something years and that was because when he did his son was supposedly in a paralyzing car accident.
fruits high in sugar, really? The guy ate fruit once every 3 days maximum and when he did he ALWAYS ate fruit unripe or mostly fruit low in sugar
(8 tbsp max), he allegedly used to have juvenile diabetes before the diet.
If anything he was incredibly cautious about sugar and talks about the effects of AGES (for example in honey) quite alot in his workshops and books.
Since when did I say I eat whole vegetables?
If you only do well on cream its probably because your farmer is freezing your butter but refrigerating your cream like mine is.
Frozen butter is TOXIC even when it is raw to me. If that is the case buy cream, wait for it to warm then get a small blender and make it into butter yourself (frozen fat is trash imo).
The misinformation I see on this forum about Ajanous especially is just phenomenal.
edit* I never said tartar on teeth is "only positive" you are moving from one extreme to the next.
I doubt I am lost. I just know how to read. Page 184 “We want to live”, middle section:
Where I have recommended cooked starch, I am referring to baked, boiled or steamed potatoes, plain grain pastas, air-popped corn, and breads (for instance, French, Italian or sourdough)
I know that he emphasized on unripe fruits, but still, in “The recipe for Living without disease” he did not always mention unripe. He listed pineapple, papaya, mango, orange, tangerines, dates, banana. And A LOT of honey including ACV. Even though I strongly believe in Honey, in some recipes he overdid it. I do know he downgraded the recommended dosage in his newsletters, but still. And it doesn’t matter if he ate it or not, he recommended it to others. And not everybody is up to date on his “latest” research.
And I never said you do eat a lot of vegetables. I said that I believe you eat vegetables, regardless if in juice, raw or cooked. Unless of course you are carnivore.
I am not able to buy raw cream. When I have raw milk I ferment it and get it myself, that´s the best. Regardless if its from cow or goat. And I do not only do well on cream, I introduced butter again some days ago and I have no issue whatsoever, contrary to pre-carnivore, I believe its because of my 6 month carnivore diet, this put my bile function up properly, and the fact that for a month I drank a lot of raw cows milk, that could have given me the bacteria I need to digest it all types of cows dairy. And that butter I eat is raw or pasteurized, organic and conventional, and it might have been frozen or not. So no difference here. Until now I do well on all. Lastly, you clearly stated in one sentence that tartar on teeth is detox. I am not moving anywhere, but I suggest to clarify that properly next time you give suggestions.
I also do not like fasting. Especially if you are thin already. I prefer to build up rather than fast or detox. You should detox with foods, not by starving. But then again I only fasted twice and I did not find real benefits.
-
The passage cited about starch is incredibly situational, 99% of clients wouldn't have probably been recommended it, he writes on and on about this for well over two paragraphs and goes into more detail whenever asked about it.
Over consumption of honey in recipes? Maybe if the person is hypoglycemic or we are talking about his cheesecake desert recipe etc.
In the primal diet workshops written years before the book he would always mention a typical daily allowance of 6 tbsp of honey for every pound of raw meat that is eaten in a day. He reasoned that the body only treats 10 percent of honey as sugar.
For example honey butter ratio is 1 tbsp of honey for every 8 tbsp of butter.
Honey also reacts differently when mixed with food then had by itself or loosely mixed.
ACV is obviously only used in remedies for people looking for help or in a meat sauce and usually in tiny amounts unless they have like liver/bladder stones or something.
We are talking three dates maximum with an equal amount of fat in volume minimum it will not cause issues.
Every precaution is described with honey and fruit.
When you Consider this guy was a nutritionist for decades that allegedly had thousands of clients and had to deal with his own stuff too, its no wonder he mentions so much in his books.
With how many hours of material you can go through with this the last thing you should do is take everything he says out of context for no reason other than "muh orthorexia".
-
No , I also showed a direct correlation between introduction of raw dairy consumption in the Neolithic era and a corresponding drop in bone-health/bone-strength in Neolithic-era peoples.
Doubtful at best, and it could be only correlation. Can you show that raw dairy consumption corresponds with bone deterioration given the same level of technology and cooking/processing of food otherwise? I doubt you can. The Pottenger studies certainly showed the opposite for cats. As did Weston Price's investigations for humans.
Also, you cannot see the forest for the trees, as you keep on whining about raw vs pasteurised when many other issues exist. Take the calcium issue, since calcium is more absorbable when in raw dairy, it follows logically that it is more harmful as regards excess calcium than pasteurised dairy.
Blah, blah, blah. You keep claiming that calcium in raw milk is an issue with no evidence thereof. All you have is a hypothesis and simple inference based on national reports of consumption/sales of cooked dairy in various countries (I don't think they even looked at total calcium consumption, only dairy consumption).
How do you explain the fact that the Pottenger studies showed that cooked milk and cooked meat deteriorate bones, but raw milk and raw meat heal bones in cats?
Then there are the hormones in raw dairy, and the fact that becoming infected from raw dairy consumption is far more likely than re consumption of pasteurised dairy.
There are also hormones in raw meat and blood. How come they're not worse for us too?
Pure drivel on your part. I had already pointed out links re Pottenger's meat study which proved my point.
Not really. As I said, the studies showed that a fully raw diet heals all disease slowly over the lifespan and increasingly over the generations, whereas a cooked diet generates and worsens all disease slowly over the lifespan and increasingly over the generations. They showed this regardless of the ratio of milk to meat being 1:2 or 2:1. The studies also showed that having simply 1/3rd raw was not enough to counteract the detriments of the 2/3rds cooked diet.
Milk being raw and of good quality was so important that even in the 100% raw groups, if the milk came from cows that received supplemental feed of irradiated yeast (supposedly for added vitamin D), the healing health effects were severely diminished. Likewise as the milk went from raw to pasteurized to processed milk concentrate, the damaging effects of each step were incremental, not only in the overall health of the cats but also in the nutrients able to be absorbed by the plants growing in the area where the cats' excretions were deposited.
I asked how dumbI already pointed to evidence of cats being kept as pets as far back as 9500 years ago at least. People would not put mere domesticated animals into the same grave as their human owner, but they would indeed put that human owner's favourite pet in the same grave.
Pure nonsense. How do you know what people thought of when they buried an animal with them? Plenty of societies buried all sorts of things with the bodies, including ornaments, clothes, coffins, trinkets, religious symbols, weapons, armor, food, flags, etc. Were all these pets too?
Likewise, pet ownership in caucasian majority countries is universal nowadays and few if any people actually bury their pets in the same space as the owners.
Also, cats aren't ideal hunters of rats, for example - that is why people who want to kill rats prefer to use terriers, among other more suitable dog breeds for that purpose.
Nobody uses cats to hunt anything. That's just a gross misunderstanding. Dogs can be used to hunt rats during the day, owing to their superb sense of smell as well as their pack hunting brain and the ability to submit to their human owners and help them in whatever they can. In some areas people do this even today for food. But nobody was going around hunting mice. There's barely any food in a mouse. The point is not to catch mice for food, but to reduce mice populations because mice will eat up your grain stores and multiply, leading to a growing problem. Not to mention the hairs, saliva, urine and feces of the mice will taint your grain as well.
Cats don't have as good a sense of smell as dogs, and they don't have the pack hunting brain nor the submissiveness of dogs. What they do have is eyes that are wonderful in low light conditions, and since mice are most active at times when it's dark, cats are perfect for reducing the mice population. Also, cats will hunt mice on their own without you needing to do anything to either help, command, train, or incentivize them.
Oh, and Ancient Egyptians kept all sorts of animals as pets(such as hippos,crocodiles etc.:-
https://www.ancient.eu/article/875/pets-in-ancient-egypt/ . Hippos and the like do NOT make suitable domesticated animals.
I'm not gonna keep reading through all your hundreds of links without you at least providing some sort of explanation or reasoning. I keep showing you that you misrepresent much of the content of even the links you yourself post, and you just ignore it and keep spamming links.
Oh, and the ancient egyptians did not only regard cats as pets but also had an egyptian cat-goddess, Bastet.
Medieval Europe had plenty of lion-like depictions in their banners and shields. In much of India today, cows are sacred. It doesn't make them pets.
Regardless of what they believe in, they have the right to criticise various dodgy aspects of the studies.
And I still showed you how their criticisms were unfounded. Yet you disregard my points and focus only on their "rights". I was only adding that to show that you're using the same arguments as the people who want you dead. You're even citing their claims as true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_cuisine#Class_constraints In this link, it shows that the upper classes in the Middle-Ages mainly went in for meat and many other foods due to the extra variety signifying higher social status, as well as the greater cost, not because meat was viewed then as being superior.
That could simply be a convoluted way of saying that it's healthier. The fact remains that when they could afford it, they'd eat mainly meats, with very little grain.
Oh, and the romans were only decadent and degenerate near the end of the empire.
I believe they were rotten to the core from the get-go, as all agricultural democratic societies are. But it does take time for the decivilizing process to degenerate the society to the point where the fundamental problems become visible.
It shouldn't be a surprise that vegetarianism, publicly praised rampant homosexuality and other anti-life, totally degenerate behaviors arose and flourished in these places.
-
I'm not saying animals don't live healthier eating raw, but Pottengers' study seems flawed to me in that 95 percent or higher of cats in the US eat Only cooked diets and live respectable lives in terms of health and go on and have little reproductive issues, contrary to what Pottenger is trying to point out. What am I missing here?
IF,, I'm not missing some important key factor, may I then point out how eager we can be to want to believe in the 'magic' of raw, as if it's going to save us from death.
*All my pets have eaten entirely raw forever
-
I'm not saying animals don't live healthier eating raw, but Pottengers' study seems flawed to me in that 95 percent or higher of cats in the US eat Only cooked diets and live respectable lives in terms of health and go on and have little reproductive issues, contrary to what Pottenger is trying to point out. What am I missing here?
IF,, I'm not missing some important key factor, may I then point out how eager we can be to want to believe in the 'magic' of raw, as if it's going to save us from death.
*All my pets have eaten entirely raw forever
You're missing the point that cats have increasingly been fed a higher and higher, up to 100% cooked diet, for many generations since the time of Pottenger's studies until now. So due to selection, the cats that are left, are able to cope with cooked foods better. But they still develop plenty of health problems. Also notice the morphology of the bones, the head in particular, which became deformed in Pottenger's studies under cooked, and most domestic cats exhibit this type of diseased morphology to this day.
And no, Pottenger didn't believe in magic. He started studying something else altogether and only started feeding cats cooked and raw as a coincidence, it wasn't his plan from the beginning at all. Once he discovered the effects, he kept studying that.
-
your logic is only partially sound to me. he said that they couldn't reproduce. But they have reproduced for generations extremely well. Do you think most pro athletes grew up on predominantly raw food? The examples I could give are many.
-
This is quite frankly a waste of time. I spent ages writing text on a smartphone on this nonsense as my PC was out of order at the time. Basically, my scientific and other evidence provided in this thread has been extensive whereas dpl has merely provided poor scientific studies on rare occasions and mostly just religious-fundamentalist opinions on raw dairy. No point in continuing. Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nichts anders.
-
your logic is only partially sound to me. he said that they couldn't reproduce. But they have reproduced for generations extremely well.
All of the studies he did, together encompass around 900 cats total. Only a fraction of which were on 100% cooked for 4 generations straight. This is a small sample size and it's perfectly possible that all of them were unable to adapt to cooked foods. However, when you take a sample of hundreds of millions of cats, and slowly introduce them to cooked foods in incremental stages, there is the possibility for mutations that enable them to better handle cooked food to arise. And those are the ones that survived and are today able to survive a 100% processed, commercial cat food diet. They don't thrive though, they have plenty of disease problems still. They just manage to survive and reproduce before the illnesses kills them.
Do you think most pro athletes grew up on predominantly raw food? The examples I could give are many.
What does that have to do with anything?
-
This is quite frankly a waste of time. I spent ages writing text on a smartphone on this nonsense as my PC was out of order at the time. Basically, my scientific and other evidence provided in this thread has been extensive whereas dpl has merely provided poor scientific studies on rare occasions and mostly just religious-fundamentalist opinions on raw dairy. No point in continuing. Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nichts anders.
Tell yourself whatever you want. You're starting to sound like cherimoya kid. We're in a raw foods forum and you're saying that cooked foods are better. You didn't provide any substantial scientific evidence for your claims, just tons of links that you expect me to go through, many of which contain plenty of errors in your statements about the claims therein. And you rejected the scientific evidence that I provided purely on the basis that it doesn't suit your biases.
-
Tell yourself whatever you want. You're starting to sound like cherimoya kid. We're in a raw foods forum and you're saying that cooked foods are better. You didn't provide any substantial scientific evidence for your claims, just tons of links that you expect me to go through, many of which contain plenty of errors in your statements about the claims therein. And you rejected the scientific evidence that I provided purely on the basis that it doesn't suit your biases.
Deeply hypocritical a remark on your part. And I did not state that cooked foods were better in general, merely that they were in many ways(not all) "less worse" than raw dairy.
-
All of the studies he did, together encompass around 900 cats total. Only a fraction of which were on 100% cooked for 4 generations straight. This is a small sample size and it's perfectly possible that all of them were unable to adapt to cooked foods. However, when you take a sample of hundreds of millions of cats, and slowly introduce them to cooked foods in incremental stages, there is the possibility for mutations that enable them to better handle cooked food to arise. And those are the ones that survived and are today able to survive a 100% processed, commercial cat food diet. They don't thrive though, they have plenty of disease problems still. They just manage to survive and reproduce before the illnesses kills them.
What does that have to do with anything?
yes, you can create explanations, still sounds quite suspicious to me.
the comment on pro athletes; we tend to put too much value on raw. animals and peoples can do just fine on cooked, especially when not eating junk.
-
I'm not saying animals don't live healthier eating raw, but Pottengers' study seems flawed to me in that 95 percent or higher of cats in the US eat Only cooked diets and live respectable lives in terms of health and go on and have little reproductive issues, contrary to what Pottenger is trying to point out. What am I missing here?
IF,, I'm not missing some important key factor, may I then point out how eager we can be to want to believe in the 'magic' of raw, as if it's going to save us from death.
*All my pets have eaten entirely raw forever
Pottengers study enabled the pet food industry to supplement their nutrient deficiency cooked kibble with synthetic aminos and vitamins so as to avoid the kind of deformations and sterility caused by an unsupplemented cooked diet.
I would think this supplementation of cooked food carries over to the human world, so that many processed foods are supplemented with extra vitamins and minerals, and humans raised on primarily cooked diets can still grow fairly well and be athletic...even though the diet isnt rawptomal.
It would be interesting to take the offspring of the most awesomely athletic cooked food specimens, and raise them on a totally raw diet for comparison?....until then all we can do is speculate on these matters
-
Just added a bracket to your post, van. Granted, cooked foods are not 100% toxic and fatal in the immediate. And there were always ways for humans in the past to detox some of the accumulated toxins derived from cooking, such as regular fasting and lots of exercise, but the inflammation caused by cooking can easily harm people even in the short term, regardless. The other aspect which I think people neglect is the (likely) appallingly negative effect of cooked foods on the human reproductive process via epigenetics. A case in point was a past thread suggesting evidence that humans are natural eaters of rotting meat(re our palaeo past) and that this may well be the cause of hominid increase in intelligence/brain-size in the Palaeolithic era. If so, consumption of cooked foods could lead to us becoming homo erectus re intelligence/brain-size in 20,000 years.
-
It would be interesting to take the offspring of the most awesomely athletic cooked food specimens, and raise them on a totally raw diet for comparison?....until then all we can do is speculate on these matters
Might backfire. There was that epigenetics study comparing 3 generations of humans, which showed that if the grandparents smoked, then the grandchildren would have a much higher risk of asthma etc. even if their parents did not smoke. I wonder how many generations it takes of eating RVAF to fully get rid of the negative effects of cooked foods?
-
yes, you can create explanations, still sounds quite suspicious to me.
I don't see what's suspicious about it. Domestic cats today that are fed cooked foods are still sick. Humans are sicker than ever. If your parents are 70+ years old, chances are they also grew up eating a significant amount of raw animal foods, besides raw plant foods. So you're first generation raised on 100% cooked as far as animal foods go. Yes you can do "fine". Look at the people who's parents are younger than that, and you can see that they have poorer health on average than our generation. And you can also see that our generation has poorer health than our parents, even though we largely gave up smoking and other harmful toxins which they had plenty of.
the comment on pro athletes; we tend to put too much value on raw. animals and peoples can do just fine on cooked, especially when not eating junk.
Most professional athletes are fed primarily grains, sugar and synthetic drugs/hormones to increase training results and performance. They break down fast. Most have to retire by their mid 30's or even sooner. Athletic performance by itself is no sign of overall health.
-
I wonder how many generations it takes of eating RVAF to fully get rid of the negative effects of cooked foods?
Why wonder? Look at Pottenger's studies. It takes 3 generations.
-
you're mixing cooked food with the added junk seed oils, copious amounts of corn syrup and truckloads of highly processed grains playing havoc with blood sugar and insulin levels causing entire body inflammation.
I have friends whos dogs and cats live as long as mine on cooked foods. I'm not saying raw isn't better, just that a cooked diet that stays away from JUNK foods is what healthy societies have eaten for eons. Look at the, I believe Mexican, long distance mountain runners who live on cooked grains and beans primarily with some meat thrown in, they run into their middle ages.
I am saying specifically that JUNK in the diet is far more detrimental than cooked food. And to be very specific; the combination of JUNK fat with JUNK sugar is most likely the biggest killer out there.
Pottenger's cats: a limited diet as he fed where those two foods Could have been overly processed in the case of the heated versions might only tell us that certain nutrients were nullified by heat to the point that deficiencies were created, that would have been sorted out had other cooked foods been eaten along with. Just like the aforementioned Mexican runners: take out either the beans or the grains and they most likely would have perished.
-
Why wonder? Look at Pottenger's studies. It takes 3 generations.
Wrong, all pottenger's studies showed was that taurine was desperately needed by cats , so that supplementation of taurine corrected the problem. Incidentally, taurine is easily water-soluble, so , as long as the meat is coooked in water and the water also drunk, then the cat gets enough taurine.See the mercola article re this below:-
Also cats fed on raw plant food would also suffer from taurine deficiency:-
https://www.petful.com/pet-health/taurine-deficiency-in-cats/
Note that dairy, however raw, is low in taurine:-
https://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2017/02/07/cat-taurine-deficiency.aspx
I was also referring to slight changes to the genome. For example, 10 generations of humans fed on a RVAF diet(minus raw dairy) might lead to much higher fertility as well as far lower chances of birth-defects.
-
While HG tribes were no doubt healthier than modern, settled peoples, it would be a real stretch to call them healthy, per se. For example, the stress-free lives of settled peoples alone counts for the greater health of wealthier city people, regardless of diet or pollution etc.
-
Might backfire. There was that epigenetics study comparing 3 generations of humans, which showed that if the grandparents smoked, then the grandchildren would have a much higher risk of asthma etc. even if their parents did not smoke. I wonder how many generations it takes of eating RVAF to fully get rid of the negative effects of cooked foods?
I agree that epigenetic adaptation to, and genetic damage from cooked foods, may take a few generations to unwind.... so it could be that the first generation to go back to raw may actually be worse off...even if the study was utilizing quality, whole animal foods.
Also, even if there was the will and resources to do so, I doubt our mainstream science establishments are sophisticated enough or righteous enough to carry out in a fair and unbiased way, such a difficult task, as multiple generational raw vs cooked dietary studies.
From my own anecdotal observations, I have seen good results by utilizing combinations of both cooked and raw foods for my Animals, Girlfriend and Children.
My cats are prolific hunters, and will regularly eat chipmunks, squils, mice and birds, while being supplemented with a little grain free meat based kibble.
The dog eats raw scraps and bones, and is also supplemented with grain free kibble.
The chickens get plenty of bugs, compost and raw meat scraps, while being supplemented with organic scratch grains
The Girlfriend eats cooked ominously, while limiting grains and soy, and also utilizing raw foods including sushi and rare red meats
The children eat a primarily cooked diet, that includes grains and standard american junk food. The situation with the mother, school, the nation, and the rest of the family is impossibly difficult to deal with, but I try my best to utilize raw foods and rare meats when I have them.
Like it of not the world has been so inundated with cooked foods that its near impossible for the average person to even attempt an entirely raw extremist way of life. Im the rawest living person I personally know, so its difficult to gain information regarding the raw vs cooked, outside of purely subjective and anecdotal suppositions.
-
@sabertooth
Wow I would have never thought your family of all is mostly cooked.
I can never go back to the old ways, cooked food is hell to me.
-
The sheer low quality and pervasiveness of school food is a solid argument in favour of homeschooling.
-
The sheer low quality and pervasiveness of school food is a solid argument in favour of homeschooling.
I would homeschool if I could...the food choices in the local schools are truly horrid.
For breakfast they serve items like pop tarts and sugar cereal
For Lunch its the most processed low quality food imaginable served with a carton of low fat chocolate milk.
My personal situation is quite dire at the moment, the mother of my children is in a losing battle with insanity and I am not yet financially able nor do I have the family support to file for full custody of the children. Me and my girlfriend are the only ones in their lives who actually cares about the quality of the food and environment, with any true passion.
Having them for only two or three days out of the week it is difficult to rebalance and compensate for the 4 or 5 days of junk food they get with their mother and at the school. We have been at odds for years over many issues, and she refuses to pack lunches and serve them unprocessed foods, even though I offered to pay the difference in cost and deliver farm fresh meat and produce to her door.
The ideal situation and reality as it is now, are worlds apart, and it breaks my bleeding heart to have to make these compromises....alas for now I provide them the best combination of cooked and raw foods available when they are with me.
-
why don´t u expand your youtube presence and make money off from that. More and more people are getting into carnivore, and with your expertise you would become quite popular, especially because you have far more knowledge than many other carnivore promoting people.
-
I would homeschool if I could...the food choices in the local schools are truly horrid.
For breakfast they serve items like pop tarts and sugar cereal
For Lunch its the most processed low quality food imaginable served with a carton of low fat chocolate milk.
My personal situation is quite dire at the moment, the mother of my children is in a losing battle with insanity and I am not yet financially able nor do I have the family support to file for full custody of the children. Me and my girlfriend are the only ones in their lives who actually cares about the quality of the food and environment, with any true passion.
Having them for only two or three days out of the week it is difficult to rebalance and compensate for the 4 or 5 days of junk food they get with their mother and at the school. We have been at odds for years over many issues, and she refuses to pack lunches and serve them unprocessed foods, even though I offered to pay the difference in cost and deliver farm fresh meat and produce to her door.
The ideal situation and reality as it is now, are worlds apart, and it breaks my bleeding heart to have to make these compromises....alas for now I provide them the best combination of cooked and raw foods available when they are with me.
I am sympathetic to your plight. You are not the only one with a spouse, current or ex, who do not share consensus on matters of nutrition. Your approach is pragmatic, and your children will see the way as they get older, do not despair.