Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Raw Kyle on March 25, 2010, 03:57:57 am
-
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183129.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183129.php)
-
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183129.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183129.php)
This article doesn't relate to raw paleos, we eat raw saturated fat and its grass fed.
-
ha, this is bogus, they did not do any studies, all they did is collect info from other studies and published articles which are very questionable to begin with.
ignore this "study" and others like it.
-
ha, this is bogus, they did not do any studies, all they did is collect info from other studies and published articles which are very questionable to begin with.
ignore this "study" and others like it.
There's too much scientific data out there now re the harm done by cooked saturated fats for the above to be convincingly debunked.Now, I will accept that the many studies' conclusions are wrongly focused on cooked saturated fats whereas it seems that it's the heat-created glycotoxins etc. in the foods high in cooked saturated fats , which are really to blame instead, but that's all.
-
This article doesn't relate to raw paleos, we eat raw saturated fat and its grass fed.
Hence it being posted in "Hot Topics" rather than "General Discussion."
-
Now, I will accept that the many studies' conclusions are wrongly focused on cooked staurated fats whereas it seems that it's the heat-created glycotoxins etc. in the foods high in cooked saturated fats , which are really to blame instead, but that's all.
You finally see the light! Congratulations.
-
You finally see the light! Congratulations.
Err, I've actually said this multiple times before, even many years ago. More to the point, my above comment is not remotely an endorsement of foods high in cooked saturated fats, I'm merely stating, instead, that it's the negative effect of cooking on those foods that is the real problem. In other words tallow etc. is still very unhealthy just for different reasons than cited in some studies.
-
tallow etc. is still very unhealthy just for different reasons than cited in some studies.
How do you explain the millions who eat tallow and ghee daily with no apparent ill effects?
Note that ghee is considered medicinal in India.
-
How do you explain the millions who eat tallow and ghee daily with no apparent ill effects? Note that ghee is considered medicinal in India.
They are relatively healthy, esp. in comparison with Western people who eat junk food.
But they would be far more healthy and live much longer when they ate raw foods.
-
How do you explain the millions who eat tallow and ghee daily with no apparent ill effects?
Note that ghee is considered medicinal in India.
I've heard so many reports from people who've actually been to India, and mentioned how very unhealthy the people are over there due to very nutrient-poor vegetarian-leaning diets, so I'm not surprised that they also eat an unhealthy food like ghee.
And millions do NOT eat tallow any more. It's now very rarely eaten as a food, let alone used for cooking any more, which is most fortunate, healthwise.
-
I think I might be able to make a thread titled "puppies" and end up with the same argument about heated animal fats in it.
-
I think I might be able to make a thread titled "puppies" and end up with the same argument about heated animal fats in it.
It's what happens when someone denies the difference between perishable fat and stable fatty acids.
-
It may be just me, but when I changed from using vegetable oils to saturated fats like coconut oil and lard or tallow and from vegan to eating cooked meat after reading Nourishing Traditions, that was a little health revolution for me. So I don't think the problems with heated animal fats apply to everyone.
-
It's what happens when someone denies the difference between perishable fat and stable fatty acids.
I think it's what happens when one or more members decide it's more important to stubbornly continue to argue a small point, putting their personal satisfaction of "proving someone wrong" online before the good of everyone and the forward movement of the forum.
-
I think it's what happens when one or more members decide it's more important to stubbornly continue to argue a small point, putting their personal satisfaction of "proving someone wrong" online before the good of everyone and the forward movement of the forum.
Exactly, william likes to continually promote pemmican despite most other RVAFers, like Ioanna etc. etc., finding it seriously problematic re health.
-
I think it's what happens when one or more members decide it's more important to stubbornly continue to argue a small point, putting their personal satisfaction of "proving someone wrong" online before the good of everyone and the forward movement of the forum.
Right.
Research and development of pemmican as a cure has been stifled here. Too bad for those who need it.
-
It takes two to tango gentleman, no matter how you spin it.
I don't want to become part of the argument, but I will say what I think is wrong with these posts once. They all appear intentionally provocative, William with the dogged pursuit of pemmican advertisement to the point of claiming a food boiled is not cooked, Tyler for going around any thread he can posting over and over that heated fat is junk, ghastly, toxic, unhealthy etc. It's not just the core content, but the way the posts seem to attack other people on the forum, coming pretty close to simple name calling.
-
It takes two to tango gentleman, no matter how you spin it.
I don't want to become part of the argument, but I will say what I think is wrong with these posts once. They all appear intentionally provocative, William with the dogged pursuit of pemmican advertisement to the point of claiming a food boiled is not cooked, Tyler for going around any thread he can posting over and over that heated fat is junk, ghastly, toxic, unhealthy etc. It's not just the core content, but the way the posts seem to attack other people on the forum, coming pretty close to simple name calling.
I agree with the sense of this post, the detail is something else...
I've never tried boiled fat.
IMO Tyler is correct in writing that fat heated >150F is poisonous; that has been my experience as well as Tyler's and PaleoPhil.
Tyler's conclusion from that experience [comment deleted - figure it out for yourself}
-
Even though Geoff speculates that cooked animal fats are the reason for them being linked to disease, you must consider that these studies don't even try to take into account exposure to chemicals and other truly disease-causing/perpetuating things. 100% of those eating SAD diets that include cooked meat, fat, and animal products are exposed daily to other toxic substances in their food and environemnt along side the animal foods being blamed.
There's mercury in more than half of corn syrups. There fillings in most people's mouths. Most people have been vaccinated with cocktails containing MSG, aluminum, and other crap. Alot of these people eat bread conditioned with bromate. Alot of them consume commercial orange juice which contains pesticides including organophosphates within the juice itself (unlike fresh squeezed juices in which the peel itself isn't part of the juicing process). And the list goes on forever. It's not the animal foods at fault, it's that the studies don't bother looking at how much of the other things people are exposed to. Not to mention the amount of sleep/rest these people get. Whether they take drugs for their headaches. Which flame retardent is on their bed. What form of water do they drink. Where do they live (ex. LA, California is a horrible place for your health). And much much more.
All those studies are belugga whales. If they die on your shore, and you eat them, you'll get botulism, dufas! < Go ahead and quote that. 8)
-
The trouble is that those chemicals/vaccines you mention are a very minor issue by comparison to heat-created toxins found in cooked foods. Besides, studies have routinely isolated those heat-created toxins and still found them to be highly damaging in and of themselves.
-
Who exactly on earth, let alone anyone on this forum, is in the position to unequivocally say that this or that toxin is of small importance vs. another?
-
Who exactly on earth, let alone anyone on this forum, is in the position to unequivocally say that this or that toxin is of small importance vs. another?
Simple, really. There are now 1,000s of studies done on the negative effects of heat-created toxins in cooked foods. Studies done on the negative effects of air-pollution and the like are, correspondingly, last I checked, in a minority by comparison, and therefore imply that air-pollution is a lesser evil. Besides, another point is that while some have the ability to get rid of some toxins(eg:- via changing their diet), many others don't have the possibility of avoiding other kinds of toxins(for example, to avoid air-pollution completely, one would have to go to some desolate rural area, one in which jobs were rather unlikely, so it would be much more difficult to avoid). Lastly, worrying about absolutely all kinds of toxins, no matter how low the dose, leads to unnecessary obsessiveness. I mean, wild animals routinely encounter minor levels of toxins(eg:- via poisonous plants or animals) and they only need to worry about the bigger doses(such as from king cobras/sea-snakes/amanita phalloides et al).
-
The trouble is that those chemicals/vaccines you mention are a very minor issue by comparison to heat-created toxins found in cooked foods. Besides, studies have routinely isolated those heat-created toxins and still found them to be highly damaging in and of themselves.
I don't think you can reduce chemicals to just smog, but those that go into the water, soil, that are in homes, and even in the EMF and electrical current etc..that ends up being ingested or absorbed or affecting out bodies in other ways no matter how much care goes into organic and raw practices. Even restricting to the most wild of game and plant foods, one would have a greater deal of chemicals to worry about than our ancestors, and already have weakened systems due to raised on forumla and/or other chemicals. Also people ingest alot of chemicals (semi-voluntarily) within the modern versions of the cooked foods that they eat which are known to cause diseases that traditional diets do not. I'm skeptical of the typical extreme hyperbolic and hopeless sounding claims regarding vaccines, but can't accept that the cooking of simple meats and/or starches in a pristine individual would results in the development of modern diseases, often linked to chemicals and other treatments and environmental factors.
-
That's absurd. Just because the scientific community chooses to do more studies or less studies on a particular subject doesn't inform at all about importance, or in the level of toxins toxicity.
-
Well, that's your choice. IMO, though, logically, some toxins must be far less harmless than others, and the ones we can actually do something about are such as those toxins found in cooked foods. Air-pollution is more difficult to get rid of on a personal basis, and there's far less scientific data supporting its harm by comparison to cooked foods. Simply put, we have all sorts of toxins affecting us:- some affect most individuals in a harmless way(eg:- most are definitely not affected by electromagnetic sensitivity), and we should concentrate on those toxins that affect us on an immediate basis. Granted, if one is living next to some over-polluted swamp etc., one has something to worry about, but for the vast majority, it's otherwise best to just reduce the basic, most common negative effects on health such as reducing smoking, cooking foods etc.
-
That's absurd. Just because the scientific community chooses to do more studies or less studies on a particular subject doesn't inform at all about importance, or in the level of toxins toxicity.
Yes it does. Until more studies are done on other toxins such as found in air-pollution, we have to , for now, concede that the available data isn't strongly in favour of air-pollution. Otherwise, it's just guess-work.
-
well, there is is difference is saying, one should not be neurotic about chemicals and vaccines, and just focus on eliminating toxins that they have control of, and saying that toxins created even at the basic level of cooking are vastly more more harmful to us than chemicals and vaccines. I only know what I've read about vaccines and remain skeptical of its extremes, but chemicals found from atom bombs and power plants to basic stuff like diesel gasoline can have nearly 100 carcinogenic compounds. These are things that affect even individuals who avoid pesticides and have cleaned their house of household pollutants. I agree most health seekers could do best not fussing over this stuff, and their best bet to eliminate any chemicals both intake and detox is to not cook food, but chemicals I believe are a major factor in disease.
-
Yes it does. Until more studies are done on other toxins such as found in air-pollution, we have to , for now, concede that the available data isn't strongly in favour of air-pollution. Otherwise, it's just guess-work.
The problem is that you make sweeping declarative statements all the time, as if you are the keeper of all of this information. Honestly if you just said "I think the toxins from cooked food are more important health problems than those from industry" or something like that I would feel a lot better. Instead it's more like "cooked food toxins cause more health problems than environmental ones" and very often reads more like "anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid." It's all your opinion based on limited personal research, but it doesn't read that way.
-
The problem is that you make sweeping declarative statements all the time, as if you are the keeper of all of this information. Honestly if you just said "I think the toxins from cooked food are more important health problems than those from industry" or something like that I would feel a lot better. Instead it's more like "cooked food toxins cause more health problems than environmental ones" and very often reads more like "anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid." It's all your opinion based on limited personal research, but it doesn't read that way.
Well, up to you how you read it, based on your opinions/biases. However, I can only go by my own experiences and report likewise:- which is that I get numerous reports from the media on the negative health-effects of cooked-foods on a regular basis, but that reports on toxins from other sources such as air-pollution are far, far rarer by comparison. When one examines the issue of other kinds of claimed toxins (such as vaccines, electromagnetic sensitivity,mercury amalgams etc.) then general scientific concensus is extremely dismissive of such concerns(though even they, admittedly, accept that a tiny minority might well suffer badly from the above.
At any rate, from my POV, all we have as definitive, are past and current anecdotal reports from fellow RVAFers and past and incoming studies from various scientific bodies. We can't accurately predict what future scientific studies can bring, so it's unwise(IMO) to speculate, beyond what we've been given, so far. I would be prepared to speculate further if I was a biochemist or some food-science-oriented specialist, but I'm not, so have to go with the available data I have coming in.
-
I can only go by my own experiences and report likewise
I don't think anyone objects to your personal experience, it's your interpretation and extrapolation of them that is a problem.
For instance your account of tallow-making indicates that you made cooked fat, not tallow, and got even sicker than I when I ate cooked fat.
I dare you to eat properly made tallow or ghee in proportion to lean meat; then you can report experience, which will be respected.
-
Unfortunately for you, we already have plenty of accounts from other RPDers on this forum on the harm done to their health by pemmican and ghee. My input isn't required, therefore, as the evidence against pemmican and ghee is already there.
As for me, I've already stated that I'm going to try a pemmican experiment within a few months, primarily out of curiosity. Ghee may be easier for me to get though in the UK(it'll also be bound to have the worst effects on my health so I won't have to endure it for long). In order to make the experiment valid, though, I would be forced to eat only or almost wholly pemmican and/or ghee, as eating any raw grassfed meats/high-meat etc. would inevitably reduce any symptoms as it does with cooked foods to some extent - not a pleasant thought having to be constantly tired, fat etc. for a couple of weeks, purely for an experiment to be correctly followed.
I should add that I don't for one moment expect you, William, to be convinced re the above experiment. You will inevitably pretend it was "the wrong kind " of pemmican/ghee(as applicable).