Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: zeno on May 10, 2011, 09:00:38 pm
-
According to in this post provided by TylerDurden (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/the-dangers-of-%28raw%29-dairy-consumption/), man has yet to become adapted to the consumption of milk. What about cheese, yogurt, butter, sour cream and clarified butter?
Isn't it correct that when lentils and grains sprout, the carbohydrates change into sugars? What about using raw milk and altering it to through souring or adding culture it? Does the milk become safe, or just relatively safer?
-
It will depend on the person.
I myself am lactose intolerant.
And congratulations to those who can digest dairy.
-
It will depend on the person.
I myself am lactose intolerant.
And congratulations to those who can digest dairy.
Have you tried to colonize your gut with bacteria that can digest lactose? I used to be lactose intolerant until I took a load of probiotics and then began drinking kefir. Now I can drink fresh raw milk without a problem.
-
Have you tried to colonize your gut with bacteria that can digest lactose? I used to be lactose intolerant until I took a load of probiotics and then began drinking kefir. Now I can drink fresh raw milk without a problem.
and let the lactose be pre-digested by them like in kefir.
-
Fermentation or eating raw butter instead of raw milk etc. have all been tried to get round allergies to raw dairy. Usually, they don't work, but they seem to work for some. I am leery of these as a solution as I think that, even if all the overt symptoms are seemingly removed, that some underlying causes(inflammation in the gut etc.) can remain which are not so overt, but which could slow down or stop healing/recovery in general of other conditions.
-
It all depends on the person/immune system. You will know if you try.
-
According to in this post provided by TylerDurden (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/the-dangers-of-%28raw%29-dairy-consumption/), man has yet to become adapted to the consumption of milk. What about cheese, yogurt, butter, sour cream and clarified butter?
Isn't it correct that when lentils and grains sprout, the carbohydrates change into sugars? What about using raw milk and altering it to through souring or adding culture it? Does the milk become safe, or just relatively safer?
For me raw dairy was disastrous in every form and even more harmful than cooked dairy.
Löwenherz
-
Wow. I had no idea dairy caused all these problems! And to think of the amount of pasteurized milk that is consumed by my family alone and extrapolating that is unfathomable to think of all the people completely unaware.
-
Wow. I had no idea dairy caused all these problems! And to think of the amount of pasteurized milk that is consumed by my family alone and extrapolating that is unfathomable to think of all the people completely unaware.
Dairy can cause problems, just like every food can cause problems.
Tyler is a bit of a militant anti-dairyist. He puts these rants on this site regularly.
Those problems he talks about are his problems and those of a group he speaks with. As to how many and what are actual factual is like a lot of stuff that gets said on this site... speculation.
I had issues with pasteurized dairy, but none since going raw. I am not addicted l) I eat meat with no problems.
I was a vege for 23 years and so in the beginning the taste and smell of meat were not pleasant, but that gradually changed.
Basically if you have issues with milk it is related to the difficulty in digesting it as it can be difficult for some.
I know he will start a big fight l) defending his wild-eyed statements, as he always does, but I am putting this here to make sure you know a bit of background. He is on a mission from God.
-
Here is Wackipedia's actual numbers re Lactose intolerance. Personally I believe these #'s are high because of the fact that pasteurization makes milk harder to digest, so in countries where pasteurization is the law the #'s are overblown.
"Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, because of a lack of the required enzyme lactase in the digestive system. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[1] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from as little as 5% in northern Europe, up to 71% for Sicily, to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[2] "
-
I am always amused at how the raw-dairy-drinking minority are so fanatical in their devotion to raw dairy, like being in a sort of drug-related cult! Yet, such are hypocritical enough to accuse us anti-raw-dairy drinkers of being similiarly religious-minded. You don't ever see quite the same level of fanaticism re raw meats or other raw food, which rather supports the plentiful other evidence re raw dairy and its addictive qualities re opioid content/hormones.
Raw-al, of course, is, as usual, lying re raw-dairy matters. He likes to pretend that lactose-intolerance is the "only" issue with raw dairy, and that everyone is somehow magically "cured" of lactose-intolerance as soon as one drinks the stuff in raw form. This sort of nonsense has been peddled for decades in the RVAF diet community by fools like Aajonus.
Ultimately, you will no doubt feel the need to do elimination diets, including or excluding raw dairy, to see what works for you. Over the years, I have come across numerous people who, at first, PMed me to say they actually did fine with raw dairy, only for them to admit, after years of experimentation with the stuff, that they actually didn't do so well with it after all.
-
Ring a ling,
Ring a ling
It's ranting time in the city. ;D
-
Ring a ling,
Ring a ling
It's ranting time in the city. ;D
You can't win any logical, scientific argument in this regard, so you are forced to resort to childishness and the like. If you had any sense, you would just stick to a more standard, more neutral argument, that "some" people do badly on raw dairy, "some" do fine, and that one should try it and see. Yet your kind like to claim that raw dairy is like some kind of "holy water" or some such rubbish, without which you are not "blessed" on the path to righteousness, and all that crap. Like I said, it's telling that there is a fanatical pro-raw dairy movement, but none such for promoting raw meats.
-
...stick to a more standard, more neutral argument, that "some" people do badly on raw dairy, "some" do fine, and that one should try it and see. Yet your kind like to claim that raw dairy is like some kind of "holy water" or some such rubbish...
Thanks, Tyler, for stating this so emphatically. I have been overwhelmed by dairy-fanaticism, which started with my own mother insisting that I drink a quart of milk a day so I could develop normally. After high school, when I was free to eliminate milk, I found that all my childhood maladies disappeared - eczema, diarrhea, flatulence.
My next milk problems occurred some years later during pregnancy. I had access to legal raw milk, which I drank for the calcium, and again my intolerances surfaced.
Swayed by the lactose-intolerance hype in those days, I switched to cultured milk products, but I never processed dairy well, period.
My last experience was trying raw dairy last weekend, on Aajonus' say-so. As soon as I went back to dairy, I had pounding headaches and sleepless nights for two nights in a row. Aajonus, God bless him, has done me much good with his writings, but the raw dairy part just isn't me, and I am grateful to TD for coming right out and saying that this might be the case. Losing one's health leads to desperate measures, and it's hard to sort through all the gurus and figure out where one's inner wisdom is leading. Sometimes we need a firm word from someone who has been there-done that to remind one to step back and put one's own knowledge in the equation.
-
Yeah, I know, I had a state-employed doctor/uncle who told my mother, for years, pre-rawpalaeodiet, that (pasteurised) dairy was the solution for all ills for any child, re supposed strong bones etc.. As a result, I suffered appalling, awful, health-problems, over the decades, which could have been easily avoided. Makes me want to vomit/weep, given my past experiences. And my raw-dairy-experiences were not much better.
-
It will depend on the person.
I myself am lactose intolerant.
And congratulations to those who can digest dairy.
They could well be the most likely ones to get into serious health troubles latter, decades latter.
Extract from GCB's Anopsology, Part 2 (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat3.html)
_Let’s go back to the subject of wine. What do you do at a function if somebody proffers you a glass of wine or champagne? Surely, you don’t ask for a glass of milk instead?
o With all due respect to the spirit of Mendès France, I’d choose wine a thousand times over! It’s much closer to something natural. A simple toxic substance like alcohol seems less dangerous to me, in small doses, than the mysterious molecules of an animal’s milk that has nothing to do with my genealogical background.
_And yet, milk is natural!
o Wrong: Cow’s milk is natural for calves, not for man!
_How is it, then, that you’re not against eggs? Eggs are laid to turn into chicks.
o Intelligence isn’t necessary to find eggs in nature. All sorts of animals include eggs in their diet, i.e. field mice, squirrels, monkeys, etc. Our genetic code has had millions of years to adapt to them; whereas, to get milk, one has had to devise no end of contrivances. Nobody has ever seen a gorilla milk a buffalo in a primeval forest.
_It has been said, however, that some snakes will drink from a cow’s udder.
o There, I smell some “snaky” reasoning. And whether the story is fiction or fact, the fact remains that we aren’t reptiles. We have to know what foods human genetics are adapted for.
_Also, Roman mythology has it that Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she-wolf.
o That’s just it, Romulus later killed his brother; that doesn’t say much for such methods. They did, at least, manage to survive on milk, which isn’t necessarily good for one’s health or for one’s mind. In Vietnam, for instance, it is thought that cow’s milk makes children nasty. As for the she-wolf who suckled the twin brothers, there is a slight problem of translation. In Latin, “lupa” means either she-wolf or prostitute. The second possibility seems more likely to me_especially in that, in those days, prostitutes weren’t necessarily looked down on.
_One certainly can’t snag you on anything....
o It’s more relevant to wonder where all those beliefs come from. Whenever food is involved, reason seems to go right out of the window. The guilt arising from cheating with nature means that one hangs onto any system that justifies trickery.
In light of experiments I have carried out, it seems to me that milk and dairy products have a major effect on the development of untold illness: infections, cancers, auto-immune diseases, etc.
_What do doctors who listen to you say to that?
o Of course, they find it shocking. Milk is the same color as innocence. We erect it into a symbol of motherly love. Even the Bible has its finger in the pie, with the land of Canaan_the land of milk and honey. We forget that we are the first mammals who have ever put milk from another animal down our digestive tract.
_So, you feel there’s an unbridgeable gap between mother’s milk and cow’s milk, do you?
o Almost as much of a chasm as between a cow and a woman. The proteins synthesized by different animal species are lined up on specific models that are as different on a molecular scale as physical traits are on an ordinary scale.
_Aren’t proteins hacked up during digestion? They should all be the same once they have filtered through the gut.
o That’s true for the bulk of protein, and that’s why one can sustain oneself on milk. But that’s not the case for all proteins. Unfortunately, it only takes a minute amount of abnormal proteins to damage our health.
_Are you saying that a definite percentage of protein in cow’s milk cannot be properly broken down?
o It’s only a very small percentage , no doubt, but enough to wreak havoc. A lot of babies can’t digest cow’s milk, which proves that some molecules in cow’s milk enter their bloodstream without being broken down otherwise, those molecules wouldn’t cause such reactions.
_It has been asserted, though, that the lining of the bowel protects us from nefarious substances.
o If that was true for all nefarious substances, poison would be unheard of; no substance could have potential to do us harm. It’s obvious that one can’t expect to be fully protected, especially when alien molecules are involved. Further, the bowel lining can be damaged by, say, drink.
_Do you think that allergies to milk have a lot to do with the imbalanced feed cows are fed?
o Naturally, silage, expellers, bio-stimulating hormones and antibiotics are unmistakably harmful. That is why I ran a string of experiments with unblended, organic milk we collected from a wholly trustworthy farmer’s animals. In the end, we even bought two goats. My wife learned how to milk them, and so we had milk warm from the udder, hand-milked and unadulterated.
When drinking the goat’s milk, I seemed to detect slightly sharper changes in taste than with cow’s milk: The former took on an unsavoury taste under particular circumstances, and as I still was quite taken by the idea of vegetarianism, I decreed that it could be deemed a semi-initial food. Unfortunately, we soon had to face facts, and very hard ones too. Members of the family alternated monthly periods of milk drinking to avoid confusing possible causes of ailment. Every single time, the milk drinkers were plagued with faintness, wanness, sunken eyes, the runs, bad breath, coated tongues, greasy hair, moodiness, and, more than anything else, minor cuts invariably turned septic.
_Haven’t you experimented with yogurt or cottage cheese? They are said to be far more digestible than milk.
o If animal milk is unsuitable for our genetic background, it might be hazardous to make it more digestible even should that be of some advantage to our digestion. It is best to keep alien proteins out.
_And yet, the processing of cheese is natural. The rennet used in cheese-making is extracted from the abomasa of cows. Those are natural enzymes that give rise to digestion.
o Possibly, but that amounts to getting around protection devices the body could mount against unconformable nutrients. Consequently, since the stuff is partly digested, digestion isn’t thrown off. And that being so, people are mistakenly happy and fail to see that their bodily defenses may have been put to sleep. This will, of course, not spare them more serious damage to the body further into the breakdown process.
_Apparently, you really believe that milk is laden with toxic substances. It is, however, used as an antidote, which is contradictory.
o Awfully sorry to have to tell you that milk can be harmful in the event of poisoning since it enhances the uptake of fat-soluble toxic molecules. What is more, you have fallen a victim to faulty reasoning: An antidote is not necessary non-toxic.
_What you’re saying is that we’ve been led astray. But it is a scientific fact that milk is very high in calcium. Children need calcium for growth.
o There is three times as much calcium in cow’s milk as in human milk. Should that not give cause for concern?
_Surely, you don’t mean that?
o I do. Milk-drinking also gluts the body with phosphate, which prevents enteric absorption of calcium_which may, contradictorily, bring down blood calcium, a well-documented fact. It’s hardly surprising that children whose thirst is slaked with feeding bottles should suffer from rickets.
Such a calcium overload is, however, just what a calf needs_since it has to build up a huge amount of bone in record time. It’ll have to have sturdy legs to kick predators away in its flight with the herd. Human babies, though, are on a different trip. There is no hurry skeleton-wise. The prime concern is brain development. It just so happens that there is twice as much lactose in human milk as in cow’s milk. Lactose is what it takes to produce the myelin sheaths that encase nerve fibers in the process of growth.
It’s quite simple, really. A human offspring needs to produce a lot of brain substance and a modest amount of bone, whereas a calf has to produce a lot of bone and not so much brain. Therefore, what happens if you feed a human baby with cow’s milk? The Japanese have shot up ever since American dairy was first imported. I have been advised of cases of children whose diets were based too much on cow’s milk and who were experiencing severe mental backwardness.
-
Ring a ling,
Ring a ling
It's ranting time in the city. ;D
LOL, good show Raw Al. You got Tyler to do one of his hilarious over-the-top rants.
I am always amused at how the raw-dairy-drinking minority are so fanatical in their devotion to raw dairy, like being in a sort of drug-related cult! Yet, such are hypocritical enough to accuse us anti-raw-dairy drinkers of being similiarly religious-minded. You don't ever see quite the same level of fanaticism re raw meats or other raw food, which rather supports the plentiful other evidence re raw dairy and its addictive qualities re opioid content/hormones. ....
Raw dairy, raw fruits, cooked fatty meats, and raw honey seem to have the most fanatical followings. With dairy and honey there's Aajonus' devotees and the WAPF and some of our RPDers, with fruits there's the 80-10-10 crowd, especially the 30BAD fruit loops, and many of the Instinctos and our own RPDers, and with savory heated fatty meats like pemmican, bacon and cooked ribeye steaks there are William and the ZIOHers. I think that palatability is likely a major factor, as I've mentioned before. Stephan Guyenet has recently been doing an interesting somewhat related series on food reward (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/04/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity.html). There aren't many who take great umbrage when someone makes a negative post about broccoli, asparagus or beans, but do one about raw dairy, fruits, honey or cooked fatty meats when their devotees are around and watch the sparks fly. :D For that matter, you can also get a rise out of people who are devoted to baked goods. Criticizing apple pie can be like criticizing motherhood and motherland to them.
Of course, I don't mean that anyone who likes these foods is fanatical, rather, I just mean that the tastiest foods tend to inspire the most fanatical defenses. Many people seem to take it personally, as though by criticizing raw dairy you were somehow criticizing them. I've seen a certain amount of it in every dietary forum I've perused, and most of the blogs as well.
-
This is b*llshi*t of course, as there are FAR more complainers re re raw dairy than raw or cooked fats or raw honey.
-
Iguana,
That explanation of why milk is so bad reminds me of the silliness that vegans use to justify not eating meat and every other diet uses to justify their prejudice.
-
Iguana,
That explanation of why milk is so bad reminds me of the silliness that vegans use to justify not eating meat and every other diet uses to justify their prejudice.
You really hate the fact that GCB provides numerous, solid, additional reasons as to why raw dairy is bad for one. Petty, petty...
-
This is b*llshi*t of course, as there are FAR more complainers re re raw dairy than raw or cooked fats or raw honey.
LOL, and I suppose it's just coincidence that you disagree with them and attack them, whereas you're all sweetness and sugar with fruit lovers? I doubt there's much "complaining" by dairy eaters at Primal or WAPF gatherings. And it seems to me I remember some rows over pemmican that you were involved in that only ended when William was banned. Besides, I didn't say there was more complaining by fruit and pemmican fans here, just that I've seen across the Internet more strident defense of raw dairy, raw fruit, cooked fatty meats, and raw honey than of other foods.
Where are the bean defenders at? Where are their emotional defenses of beans? LOL Point me to them. Where are the asparagus crusaders waggling their sticks of veg at the nonbelievers? There may be an occasional post here and there where someone admits to eating beans or asparagus, but none of the knock-down, drag-out fights one finds over raw dairy, raw fruit, pemmican and raw honey, and I'm talking about at other forums too. I'm not limiting the discussion to just this one.
Your remarks are the usual substanceless rantings you tend to initially spew out when someone says something that doesn't 100% match your views. To your credit you eventually sometimes provide some evidence and I understand that you had a very bad experience with raw dairy and with Aajonus' bogus advice regarding it, but your rantings are laughable and only undercut your credibility, just as Aajonus' over-the-top praise of raw dairy as a miracle cure does. Mind you, it is good entertainment in occasional small doses. I think I'll call the game "tweaking the Durden" and raw Al is an able player. ;D
-
The idea that something didn't exist at some point in history so is therefore unfit for use in either nutrition or as a health tool is a pretty big mistep any human has ever conceived in the science of human health (and as phil points out that logic does get used to prove all other kinds of diets and avoid things that might be necessary on an individual level) possibly second to Pasteur's conclusions. Ironically people can potentially do worse following such ideas than people that follow standard sterilizations, cooking, and treatments and this is more proof or 'science' to me than any micro assessment or genealogical breakdown of what is 'food'. People seeking alternative health methods IMO need to think more critically than that. In regards to dairy it comes down to genuine critical assessment of any negative symptoms and results..and this applies to both pro or con camps.
To state that the varieties of dairy products do not matter or have the same problems is basically a false statement even if 99.99% people did poorly on a variety of types. Its just not accurate scientifically to say such things are the same because they come from the same source. This is like saying all permutations of oxygen are healthy...or I guess more accurately that liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen which are both harmful cannot be used on a spacecraft to create necessary oxygen. I think if people started thinking more that we are in some artificial condition (like the spacecraft) in need of balancing and manipulating rather than getting to some ideal state merely by mimicking some kind of process or 'diet' that at the end of the day absolutely no one can prove. [FWIW I think dairy fat mimics animal fat pretty well -while milk is potentially dubious for many people - and that dairy fat has bonuses over the available fats that can usually only be obtained frozen]
Generally people latch on to some extreme where since almost all the tools of mankind do not seem to work in terms of creating health, they assume that removing all those things of man will ensure good health alone. Thinking such is like storing garbage bags your entire life in your house and thinking since you stop taking in garbage that these will necessarily just disintegrate or something... not understanding that some kind of physical work, ingenuity and tools or vehicles will be needed for such a process. In a nutshell I think what the issue comes down to is whether throwing dairy on that mess would ultimately be seen as just creating more crap or in some peoples opinions actually aiding in its removal, or simply just providing the energy for doing so that other foods do not seem to for whatever reasons that are individual.
An ancient person may have 0 use for dairy and yet for a modern person and in the many uses of dairy products there is no single replacement for those foods. Meat fats or plant carbs are completely different and do not act on the body in the same way. Even say they are worse, they are just not the same and anyone who uses these things interchangeably can actually say how they work differently. Saying ""people can do fine for many years with dairy" is like saying "people can do fine with many years without it" because basically on some level none of this is necessary but certain things like including dairy or restricting it might be of value for different conditions.
For every study or scientific reasoning for how dairy leeches this or causes that imbalance there is evidence that dairy products SPECIFICALLY can create conditions for toxic compounds to leave the body or for general function/proper bowel health etc..Whether people choose to believe such information I guess is up to them.
The simple empirical fact remains is that if a single person can reverse problems on raw dairy when they could not on other programs ultimately proves dairy as a potentially healthful substance free of universal panning. So even amongst the most critical/skeptical it bodes poorly to cite such information that goes against real world information based on stuff on paper that no one completely agrees upon. It doesn't prove that it isn't potentially bad or that people don't have legitimate personal experiences..but even 99.999999% of the population potentially doing poorly on dairy or if cow dairy was some newly invented laboratory product 50 years ago (as opposed to however many thousands of years) would not be sufficient in disproving peoples actual results.
-
Does this mean babies are not supposed to be raw human breastmilk fed?
-
... my own mother insisting that I drink a quart of milk a day so I could develop normally. After high school, when I was free to eliminate milk, I found that all my childhood maladies disappeared - eczema, diarrhea, flatulence.
evehart,
I hear ya. Parents (like me no doubt l) ) the world over had tried to get their children to eat and do all kinds of wild and wonderful things, especially eat foods that are "Good" for you. They do the wrong things for the right reason. They love their child and want them to have the best start in life.
Unfortunately a number of dietary concepts get foisted on children. My mother frinstance had a thing about powdered skim milk. It was partly economic, but I was disgusted with it. I swear I would starve rather than drink that, but I don't really want to test that theory, thank you. LOL
My ex used conning the kids with sugar and salt in the food and fed them a very SAD regimen. She did this because this was how she was raised. In fact I broke her of the habit she had. Her mother fed her hamburgers and potatoes every single day of her life. Both her mother and her have serious weight issues along with health issues. Mother made it to 69 years before she passed away.
I am very suspicious when mothers talk about food with words like "treats". This normally means sugar OD.
I was a vege for many years and I tried to get them to eat that way but gave up very early in that one. ;D
One of my daughter's friend was force fed milk even though she didn't like it. That girl grew very tall. Almost a bit too tall. But her mother was tall.
-
LOL, and I suppose it's just coincidence that you disagree with them and attack them, whereas you're all sweetness and sugar with fruit lovers? I doubt there's much "complaining" by dairy eaters at Primal or WAPF gatherings. And it seems to me I remember some rows over pemmican that you were involved in that only ended when William was banned. Besides, I didn't say there was more complaining by fruit and pemmican fans here, just that I've seen across the Internet more strident defense of raw dairy, raw fruit, cooked fatty meats, and raw honey than of other foods.
The only reason I got at William was because he had become far too fanatical on the subject of so-called "evil carbs" and other utter nonsense re Creationism. He was hardly typical. I mean, there are a few diehards on ZIOH or on some of the fruitarian diet forums, but, outside such forums, there is far less fanaticism than that which exists in the pro-raw-dairy movement as a whole. As a result, I am far less critical of ZC or fruitarians as there is no need for me to moderate their behaviour so much. By contrast, given past examples on other forums, if I didn't target the pro-raw-dairy fanatics when they started preaching, they would, sooner or later, start making it seem as though it was the "their fault" that people had issues with raw dairy, or worse.
Your remarks are the usual substanceless rantings you tend to initially spew out when someone says something that doesn't 100% match your views. To your credit you eventually sometimes provide some evidence and I understand that you had a very bad experience with raw dairy and with Aajonus' bogus advice regarding it, but your rantings are laughable and only undercut your credibility, just as Aajonus' over-the-top praise of raw dairy as a miracle cure does. Mind you, it is good entertainment in occasional small doses. I think I'll call the game "tweaking the Durden" and raw Al is an able player. ;D
Childish drivel, as usual. You're just getting back at me because I had previously, way back when, criticised your own fanatical "treatises" on Weston-Price among several other issues.
Whatever the case, the very fact that pro-raw-dairy drinkers get worked up by my own stance re raw dairy, is a direct sign of their own fanaticism. I have always stated that I am well aware that some do thrive on raw dairy, so no one can accuse me of suggesting it's always a deadly poison for everyone. Plus, the only reason why I often recommend against raw dairy is that it is so often cited by rawists as causing problems, particularly for those with serious health-problems(unsurprising, really, as rates of allergies and the like often increase in tandem with ill-health).
-
Does this mean babies are not supposed to be raw human breastmilk fed?
Don't be ridiculous, of course, raw human breastmilk is fine.
-
The real problem re some types of foods being "less worse" than others is that we live in a society where food is so abundant that most of us can get hold of plenty of quality foods, without needing to resort to cooked foods and the like. As regards types of raw dairy, it's a safe bet that, if someone has some sort of food-intolerance to one type of raw dairy, that the other types of raw dairy are also harmful(in a small way) in the long run, even if no immediate overt symptoms are experienced.
-
I think since AV and similar folks and whatever their conclusions are which might not match up for others it makes sense and is valuable to have individuals saying that they have used other methods that were more effective. Like isolating bacterias or viruses this is not really evidence that things are harmful just that for whatever factors due to level of health or genetics or internal issues OR inherent problems with the foods that these things were not useful for them and possibly even detrimental (not 'detoxes').
even if eating raw, fermented, room temperature, dairy fat only etc...are indeed just "less worse" and all lead at least on some level to a type of deficiency or problem..the thing is why would that matter if they could not meet their goals otherwise in the present, or could not even overcome their health issues to live that far in the future or just find that they just noticeably do better that way and at any moment can do something else if necessary.
Its easy for someone else to claim based on their own experience and some obvious conclusion that people do not inherently require dairy products that others would be better without them for those reasons but essentially this is just the flip side of the coin as to what AV and others offer. Its like "oh I don't need this" (based on their own opinion/self assessment/analysis of ancient vs non-modern people/problems) vs "everyone needs this" (based on their own opinion/self assessment/assessment of others). Essentially you see these arguments played out on countless diet battlefields backed up by countless unknowns about our origins and people seemingly doing good or bad on things that seem right to someone. You are always going to find the person eating just oranges for 5 years or eating only pemmican for 7 years or whatever. Some of these types of people on all sides even will claim what they do works for everyone and that everything else is bad or creates toxicity or is not food for humans. They key to explore concepts but ones that do not rule over what is actually working or not working regardless of how pure or logical it sounds.
I mean people shouldn't be applying any kind of idea that doesn't actually work for them based on someone else's concept. So if they find that chugging milk daily does not actually result in health they probably want to examine those claims or alter what they are doing but also see if those things were really in line with what people were proposing in the first place.
-
What you forget is that, as a group, we are supposed to recommend what works best for the majority of people. Sure, there will always be exceptions who seem to have no issues with certain cooked foods, for example, and there are larger subsets of people who need to go RZC rather than raw omnivore, or vice versa. If we were to say "just eat whatever you want and see what works" that would just waste peoples' time for months/years before they found what actually worked for them. Better to provide short-cuts so that they can find out what works best for most people, and then tailor the diet to fit their needs, re adding in raw dairy or whatever, if they feel the need.
-
sure, particularly since its a paleo centered forum. The issue is more when people state that dairy has no use for anyone (or in a discussion thread that it is inevitably automatically worse than X paleo food/quantity) and then cite things that really are tautological arguments since they use the very principles/logic of the diet itself - and are not expressed as opinions.
As for allergies. Being skeptical of all claims of 'health experts' I no longer have a grasp of what an allergy or food intolerance even is. It seems like all my allergies unilaterally go away as time goes on so I don't see the allergies to supposed harmful things becoming less acute and less sensitive while others go down and health goes up.
I think people that have intolerances to fruit or seafood should be able to reverse those if they desire. So to me this criticism is also just a blanket extension of the observation that we have not been eating it for all eternity so that the intolerance is beneficial or something whereas seafood or fruit allergies are the only things in the realm of modern toxicity because these of course are healthful in any type or quantity... I mean I thought red meat was the only thing generally people could not be allergic to, but there are beef allergies.
I don't have all the data, but it seems like quite a few people even on this site consume dairy products including people who were not using dairy products for some time and now are again. People don't have to claim one can eat whatever while acknowledging that this is true and that not all these people are following any particular system or always rationalizing detoxes and the like.
-
What you forget is that, as a group, we are supposed to recommend what works best for the majority of people.
To use your expression b*llsh#t.
We are not in the business of telling anyone how to live/eat. We are discussing our experience. We are incapable of giving out the last word in diet indeed I believe that no one is.
We are discovering for ourselves what works for us personally. I do not do what others tell me as that would be impossible, nobody does. There is not enough time in any life to do what everybody tells you. Governments in the past have tried to tell people what to do and of course they fail.
Everyones mileage will vary and what difference is it what the majority or the minority does? If a food makes you sick/well it makes you sick/well.
It is ridiculous that one size fits all diets could exist. Different climates, different food availability, different local customs enter into the process. I'd love to eat coconuts fresh off the tree like Goodsamaritan does or some of his exotic fish but the coconut trees all blew down in Canada a few weeks ago ;D
-
Ty, I agree with your last comment about giving people platform of foods that are healthful for nearly everyone, but until yesterday I thought you were 100% anti dairy for everyone, all the time, and that it had no use whatsoever. And whether or not that is what you believe, it makes no difference if that is the message people are perceiving from you. Maybe it's just me who thought that way and I didn't dig deep enough, but I don't think that is the case.
And let it be stated, that I have been 3 years last nov. eating raw animal foods, and started out with some pretty mean and frequent detoxes and then gradually got to where I am today, not having been sick in a year, and all of my chronic maladies vanished. Health wouldn't really cross my mind, if I weren't always trying to learn and teach about it. Meaning that I'm so happy and able to focus on living my life instead of constantly trying to remedy this or that ailment. And I not only consume raw dairy, but I consider last summer's consumption of about a qt. of raw, heritage, grass fed cream each day, to have precipitated huge amounts of healing. In other words, I feel I truly thrive on raw dairy, or at least have experienced a lot of healing from it, because I can tolerate vastly more sugar and cooked foods than I could prior.
So this is one vote in favor of dairy, but I also believe everyone has their own optimal set of foods written in to their genome and I'm just grateful that dairy is included in mine!
-
Ty, I agree with your last comment about giving people platform of foods that are healthful for nearly everyone, but until yesterday I thought you were 100% anti dairy for everyone, all the time, and that it had no use whatsoever. And whether or not that is what you believe, it makes no difference if that is the message people are perceiving from you. Maybe it's just me who thought that way and I didn't dig deep enough, but I don't think that is the case.
And let it be stated, that I have been 3 years last nov. eating raw animal foods, and started out with some pretty mean and frequent detoxes and then gradually got to where I am today, not having been sick in a year, and all of my chronic maladies vanished. Health wouldn't really cross my mind, if I weren't always trying to learn and teach about it. Meaning that I'm so happy and able to focus on living my life instead of constantly trying to remedy this or that ailment. And I not only consume raw dairy, but I consider last summer's consumption of about a qt. of raw, heritage, grass fed cream each day, to have precipitated huge amounts of healing. In other words, I feel I truly thrive on raw dairy, or at least have experienced a lot of healing from it, because I can tolerate vastly more sugar and cooked foods than I could prior.
So this is one vote in favor of dairy, but I also believe everyone has their own optimal set of foods written in to their genome and I'm just grateful that dairy is included in mine!
I also got that Tyler was of that opinion. I am glad to see the change.
CitrusHigh,
Wow a qt of cream a day. I can't imagine that much. I suspect I would be makin long distant calls on the porcelain telephone ;D -v even though I love cream. Must have been expensive.
I know I talk a lot about Ayurveda, as it is my background, but the beauty of the system is that it shortcuts the whole nonsense of figuring out what diet/foods work best. It does not differentiate between cooked or raw, it just suggests what will work best for you personally.
Unfortunately the people who teach Ayurveda today generally are cooked vege eaters so the impression is that Ay. is against meat. This is nonsense as the main/best books were written a couple of thousand years ago before the Buddhist influence started in earnest. There is lots of reference to a variety meats, and other things that would shock the hell out of most holier than thou dedicated Ay. veges.
The whole vege thing in India I think is economic. Grains are very cheap.
-
The only reason I got at William was because he had become far too fanatical on the subject of so-called "evil carbs" and other utter nonsense re Creationism.
Surely you also recall the rows that you and he had over pemmican?
I mean, there are a few diehards on ZIOH or on some of the fruitarian diet forums, but, outside such forums, there is far less fanaticism than that which exists in the pro-raw-dairy movement s a whole.
I haven't counted the numbers of the factions all across the internet, but are you so sure that your own bad experience with raw dairy and strong anti-dairy views don't account for some of your feelings on this?
As a result, I am far less critical of ZC or fruitarians as there is no need for me to moderate their behaviour so much.
Of course, since we've only had a few fruitarians and near-fruitarians here and more raw dairy advocates. Our meat eating seems to keep away most fruitarians. We've also probably had fewer ZCers than dairy consumers, probably because there are other forums dedicated to ZC, VLC, LC and carnivory. Again, I was talking about the Internet as a whole rather than just this forum. I come across more fruit-fanatics and ZC zealots outside this forum than within it. I've seen more and larger forums dedicated to fruit-heavy diets and ZC/VLC than Weston Price and Aajonus. From what I've seen, the raw dairy advocates don't seem to have a good, highly-active forum dedicated to their views, which might explain why they appear at many other forums like this one. Perhaps some of our raw dairy fans could fill us in on any large and highly active raw dairy forums they know about?
By contrast, given past examples on other forums, if I didn't target the pro-raw-dairy fanatics when they started preaching, they would, sooner or later, start making it seem as though it was the "their fault" that people had issues with raw dairy, or worse.
Yes, I have noticed that at times and it can be frustrating. I've also noticed here and at http://www.cavemanforum.com and Paleofood that there are some Paleo dieters with a knee-jerk tendency to simply dismiss dairy out of hand as "not Paleo" instead of thinking it through and engaging in rational discussion with the dairy advocates. It's somewhat understandable for people who are new to Paleo to dismiss dairy as regards their own diets, because they haven't had time to investigate everything thoroughly and the Cordain and Audette lists that completely prohibit dairy can be a quick-and-dirty shortcut to get started, but when those lists are used to stifle discussion I imagine that can get frustrating for the dairy advocates. Those lists can also go wrong if instead of butter, someone eats lots of canola oil (Cordain later recanted that recommendation).
You're just getting back at me because I had previously, way back when, criticised your own fanatical "treatises" on Weston-Price among several other issues.
LOL Utter laughable nonsense. I've never been a fanatic follower of Weston Price as I explained then and I was actually attacked by one of his followers at Paleofood (which I seem to recall pointing out to you before) and highly criticized by KGH for making comments that were too anti-dairy in his view, as you know. I have also explained multiple times in the past that I joined this forum in part because it did not officially advocate dairy products. This goes to show that your anti-dairy fanaticism is so extreme you even attack someone as a WP fanatic who doesn't drink any milk, isn't a devotee of Weston Price or the WAPF, and joined in part because this forum doesn't advocate dairy products, merely because I didn't dismiss everything he wrote out of hand and despite the fact that you yourself have cited him where his views agreed with yours--the height of hypocrisy. I suppose that makes your agreements with him "fanatical treatises" as well, by your bogus standards. My guess is that most people here, not just raw-al, CitrusHigh and myself, recognize that your anti-dairy rants tend to be way over-the-top. Despite my having had some bad experiences with raw dairy advocates in the past, you're making them seem more and more reasonable by comparison to your behavior.
Whatever the case, the very fact that pro-raw-dairy drinkers get worked up by my own stance re raw dairy, is a direct sign of their own fanaticism.
That would be more convincing if you didn't react to their posts with far more fanatical responses.
I have always stated that I am well aware that some do thrive on raw dairy, so no one can accuse me of suggesting it's always a deadly poison for everyone. Plus, the only reason why I often recommend against raw dairy is that it is so often cited by rawists as causing problems, particularly for those with serious health-problems(unsurprising, really, as rates of allergies and the like often increase in tandem with ill-health).
Now that's a much more reasonable comment. I don't disagree with that and I think you would be more persuasive if you used more of that tone.
even if eating raw, fermented, room temperature, dairy fat only etc...are indeed just "less worse" and all lead at least on some level to a type of deficiency or problem..the thing is why would that matter if they could not meet their goals otherwise in the present, or could not even overcome their health issues to live that far in the future or just find that they just noticeably do better that way and at any moment can do something else if necessary.
Right, and I think raw dairy, particularly raw dairy fats, might be an OK substitute for some who for whatever reason won't or can't eat raw marrow or suet or other animal body fats. Raw dairy fats tend to be much more acceptable to modern Western people and it could potentially be a stepping stone to a more RPD-type diet.
Ty, I agree with your last comment about giving people platform of foods that are healthful for nearly everyone, but until yesterday I thought you were 100% anti dairy for everyone, all the time, and that it had no use whatsoever. And whether or not that is what you believe, it makes no difference if that is the message people are perceiving from you.
Right, his anti-dairy posts are often so over-the-top that they give the impression that he's even more anti-dairy than he is.
-
To use your expression b*llsh#t.
We are not in the business of telling anyone how to live/eat. We are discussing our experience. We are incapable of giving out the last word in diet indeed I believe that no one is.
That is pure, utter drivel, of course. First of all, like KD said, this is a rawpaleoforum, so, naturally, most people come here because their health failed dismally on other diets, whether SAD diets or raw-dairy-filled diets like Weston-Price. So it is , anyway, perfectly natural for us to mention the experiences that most of us have. Were we only to speak of our own individual experiences, we would be, in most cases, short-changing newbies and make their dietary experiments more difficult and more lengthy, not less.
Secondly, no one is actually forcing anyone to do anything. After all, we are all separated by eletronic wires, and no one can therefore force us to do anything. All we offer is advice.
-
I also got that Tyler was of that opinion. I am glad to see the change.
I never changed, though. Of course, people usually prefer to see what they want to see , rather than what actually happened.
-
Surely you also recall the rows that you and he had over pemmican?
Again, the only reason why I got at William, over that issue, was because he ranted constantly about pemmican, rudely attacked others who had negative experiences re pemmican. If he had seen sense, he could have been like Lex and just mentioned pemmican occasionally in the Journals section or the hot topics forum. But he was so fanatical about pemmican that he went way over the top, and had to be stopped.
I haven't counted the numbers of the factions all across the internet, but are you so sure that your own bad experience with raw dairy and strong anti-dairy views don't account for some of your feelings on this?
Of course not. After all, I encountered such frequent, fanatical pro-raw-dairy views online, long before I had even made up my mind about raw dairy. Indeed, it was that very fanaticism of pro-raw-dairy-advocates on other forums that got me to waste another 6 months of trying raw dairy before finally giving it up.
Of course, since we've only had a few fruitarians and near-fruitarians here and more raw dairy advocates. Our meat eating seems to keep away most fruitarians. We've also probably had fewer ZCers than dairy consumers, probably because there are other forums dedicated to ZC, VLC, LC and carnivory. Again, I was talking about the Internet as a whole rather than just this forum. I come across more fruit-fanatics and ZC zealots outside this forum than within it. I've seen more and larger forums dedicated to fruit-heavy diets and ZC/VLC than Weston Price and Aajonus. From what I've seen, the raw dairy advocates don't seem to have a good, highly-active forum dedicated to their views, which might explain why they appear at many other forums like this one. Perhaps some of our raw dairy fans could fill us in on any large and highly active raw dairy forums they know about?
I was, of course, not referring to this forum, but to the Internet in general. My experience was the opposite - even the raw vegans were not as virulent as the raw-dairy-advocates, if raw vegan members attacked the consumption of certain fruits, say.
Yes, I have noticed that at times and it can be frustrating. I've also noticed here and at http://www.cavemanforum.com and Paleofood that there are some Paleo dieters with a knee-jerk tendency to simply dismiss dairy out of hand as "not Paleo" instead of thinking it through and engaging in rational discussion with the dairy advocates. It's somewhat understandable for people who are new to Paleo to dismiss dairy as regards their own diets, because they haven't had time to investigate everything thoroughly and the Cordain and Audette lists that completely prohibit dairy can be a quick-and-dirty shortcut to get started, but when those lists are used to stifle discussion I imagine that can get frustrating for the dairy advocates. Those lists can also go wrong if instead of butter, someone eats lots of canola oil (Cordain later recanted that recommendation).
Not true at all. Cordain and Audette have put forward several different versions of their diet, such as "lite" versions filled with some dairy and grains for those who don't want to go fully palaeo for whatever reason.
LOL Utter laughable nonsense. I've never been a fanatic follower of Weston Price as I explained then and I was actually attacked by one of his followers at Paleofood (which I seem to recall pointing out to you before) and highly criticized by KGH for making comments that were too anti-dairy in his view, as you know. I have also explained multiple times in the past that I joined this forum in part because it did not officially advocate dairy products. This goes to show that your anti-dairy fanaticism is so extreme you even attack someone as a WP fanatic who doesn't drink any milk, isn't a devotee of Weston Price or the WAPF, and joined in part because this forum doesn't advocate dairy products, merely because I didn't dismiss everything he wrote out of hand and despite the fact that you yourself have cited him where his views agreed with yours--the height of hypocrisy. I suppose that makes your agreements with him "fanatical treatises" as well, by your bogus standards. My guess is that most people here, not just raw-al, CitrusHigh and myself, recognize that your anti-dairy rants tend to be way over-the-top. Despite my having had some bad experiences with raw dairy advocates in the past, you're making them seem more and more reasonable by comparison to your behavior.
Utterly ridiculous. Your past pro-WP rants were self-evidently in favour of the Noble Savage theory and similiar WP nonsense. Sure, you did, afterwards, make a big play about how, supposedly, you were not a WP-diehard, but these were just foolish equivocations, as a form of damage-limitation. And, as regards me supporting some of WP's points, that is by no means hypocritical:- first of all, one of my observations in life has always been that no one can possibly be 100 percent correct or 100 percent wrong. Secondly, I have supported those specific points WP made which fit in with what other, more solid scientists or explorers have also stated. That is only logical since many of WP's points are vague and dodgy in the extreme.
That would be more convincing if you didn't react to their posts with far more fanatical responses.
I only react to them. I don't usually go on the warpath, unlike the pro-raw-dairy-advocates, unless some transgression has occurred re untruths or whatever.
-
Again, the only reason why I got at William, over that issue, was because he ranted constantly about pemmican, rudely attacked others who had negative experiences re pemmican. If he had seen sense, he could have been like Lex and just mentioned pemmican occasionally in the Journals section or the hot topics forum. But he was so fanatical about pemmican that he went way over the top, and had to be stopped.
Right, that was my point. He was fanatical about pemmican. Raw dairy isn't the only food that people get fanatical about.
I was, of course, not referring to this forum, but to the Internet in general. My experience was the opposite - even the raw vegans were not as virulent as the raw-dairy-advocates, if raw vegan members attacked the consumption of certain fruits, say.
What are you referring to here, when a raw vegan forum member criticized a certain fruit and the other members attacked the critic, but did so less virulently than raw dairy advocates? There are more virulent scenarios than that at raw vegan forums, such as when someone criticizes the category of sweet fruits, or worse, fruits in general or reports poor results from following a fruit-heavy raw vegan diet, or still worse advocates meat. Are you not familiar with DurianRider and 30BAD?
Not true at all. Cordain and Audette have put forward several different versions of their diet, such as "lite" versions filled with some dairy and grains for those who don't want to go fully palaeo for whatever reason.
I think you mean the "open meals" that Cordain allowed in "Level I" and "Level II" of his diet and allowances that Audette makes for those who cannot stick to Neanderthin 100 percent and don't get significant health problems from small amounts of his "forbidden foods." Whereas I was referring to Cordain's list of "Foods You Should Avoid" in the 2002 edition of The Paleo Diet and Audette's list of "Forbidden Foods" in the 1999 edition of Neanderthin. At any rate you missed my point. Some people focus on Cordain's and Audette's lists of allowed and prohibited foods, taking them as absolute gospel and ignoring the language about allowances. I was talking about those Paleo dieters who do that, not Cordain and Audette themselves. I can't count the number of times I've seen a question or positive statement about dairy receive a quick dismissal of "Dairy is not Paleo" from someone who has read the writings of Cordain or Audette or other Paleo diet advocates. I wasn't saying that I blame Cordain or Audette for that.
Utterly ridiculous. Your past pro-WP rants were self-evidently in favour of the Noble Savage theory and similiar WP nonsense.
Pure fabrication. That was only in your imaginings and in your clumsy attempts to twist my posts to fit your stupid straw men, and you've tried this with others who disagreed with you. Your repetition of such slanders doesn't make them true.
Sure, you did, afterwards, make a big play about how, supposedly, you were not a WP-diehard, but these were just foolish equivocations, as a form of damage-limitation.
That's what you would clearly like people to believe, but I was quite obviously not a WP diehard going back to PaleoFood, before I even joined this forum. As I mentioned, I was criticized by a WP diehard at PaleoFood. I have always considered WP's views to be excessively positive about raw dairy and whole rye bread and I disagree with him on other points and emphases. Your attempts to discredit everyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views on WP and dairy as some sort of WP or AV diehard are transparently obvious.
And, as regards me supporting some of WP's points, that is by no means hypocritical:
Of course it is. You savage anyone who cites anything by WP that doesn't support your views, usually providing no clarification that you think that WP is right about certain other things, but apparently see no contradiction in your own citations of his work when it supports your points.
first of all, one of my observations in life has always been that no one can possibly be 100 percent correct or 100 percent wrong.
You couldn't tell that by the way you respond to posts that don't tow your party line. All I'm suggesting is to lighten up a little and I hope your acknowledgment of the fact that no one is 100% correct will suggest to you the same.
many of WP's points are vague and dodgy in the extreme.
Yet you nonetheless haven't demonstrated a problem with citing him without caveat when it suits your purposes.
I only react to them. I don't usually go on the warpath, unlike the pro-raw-dairy-advocates, unless some transgression has occurred re untruths or whatever.
Whatever you call it, you seem to carry it too far at times, including in this thread, and I'm not the only one who has noticed that. At least you've helped me to see that I was probably overly intolerant of dairy advocacy myself in the past, in part due to my being turned off by the WAPF fanaticism. That's why the claim that I'm a WP fanatic is so hilarious. Some in the pro-dairy crowd have tried to paint me as a pro-Cordain/Paleo fanatic with a knee-jerk anti-dairy zealotry. You can't both be right and the truth is that I'm neither, and between the two I've been closer to pro-Paleo zealotry than pro-dairy/WP zealotry, especially in the past.
I was turned off by the WAPF fanaticism but now I have seen the other extreme and it is even more distasteful. I suppose one benefit of your anti-dairy fanaticism is that it makes my views about dairy look extremely reasonable and moderate in comparison. So I thank you for that. ;D
-
Right, that was my point. He was fanatical about pemmican. Raw dairy isn't the only food that people get fanatical about.
Citing one tiny, lone example does NOT give any remote credence to the notion that people get just as fanatical about raw dairy as with other foods. *sigh*
What are you referring to here, when a raw vegan forum member criticized a certain fruit and the other members attacked the critic, but did so less virulently than raw dairy advocates? There are more virulent scenarios than that at raw vegan forums, such as when someone criticizes the category of sweet fruits, or worse, fruits in general or reports poor results from following a fruit-heavy raw vegan diet, or still worse advocates meat. Are you not familiar with DurianRider and 30BAD?
Pure, deliberately vague generalisations. The fact is that raw-dairy-advocates attack anybody who makes even the slightest criticism of raw dairy. At best, I have come across a few such advocates who state the outrageous lie that "absolutely anyone can handle raw butter", but even that is not terribly common.
I think you mean the "open meals" that Cordain allowed in "Level I" and "Level II" of his diet and allowances that Audette makes for those who cannot stick to Neanderthin 100 percent and don't get significant health problems from small amounts of his "forbidden foods." Whereas I was referring to Cordain's list of "Foods You Should Avoid" in the 2002 edition of The Paleo Diet and Audette's list of "Forbidden Foods" in the 1999 edition of Neanderthin. At any rate you missed my point. Some people focus on Cordain's and Audette's lists of allowed and prohibited foods, taking them as absolute gospel and ignoring the language about allowances. I was talking about those Paleo dieters who do that, not Cordain and Audette themselves. I can't count the number of times I've seen a question or positive statement about dairy receive a quick dismissal of "Dairy is not Paleo" from someone who has read the writings of Cordain or Audette or other Paleo diet advocates. I wasn't saying that I blame Cordain or Audette for that.
Well, at least you very grudgingly admit that neither Cordain nor Audette were strict re their interpretations and allowed compromises of various sorts. As for the very few who state things like "dairy is not palaeo", in almost all cases, such people are talking about their own or others' experiences re not doing too well on dairy, so their statements are perfectly valid.
Pure fabrication. That was only in your imaginings and in your clumsy attempts to twist my posts to fit your stupid straw men, and you've tried this with others who disagreed with you. Your repetition of such slanders doesn't make them true.
I'm afraid that since you are not a Global Moderator, you do not have the opportunity to delete your's or others' posts, so any steadfast perusal of your past posts shows the exact opposite of what you are pretending to claim. To slightly misquote Martin Luther:- "Hier stehst du! Du kannst nicht anders!"
That's what you would clearly like people to believe, but I was quite obviously not a WP diehard going back to PaleoFood, before I even joined this forum. As I mentioned, I was criticized by a WP diehard at PaleoFood. I have always considered WP's views to be excessively positive about raw dairy and whole rye bread and I disagree with him on other points and emphases. Your attempts to discredit everyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views on WP and dairy as some sort of WP or AV diehard are transparently obvious.
B*llsh*t, and more equivocation. Besides, another obvious explanation exists:- you just liked to argue for the sake of arguing so chose a pro-WP argument just in order to play devil's advocate. Childish.
Of course it is. You savage anyone who cites anything by WP that doesn't support your views, usually providing no clarification that you think that WP is right about certain other things, but apparently see no contradiction in your own citations of his work when it supports your points.
B*llsh*t again. Like I said before, I quote WP's points mainly only when they are corroborated by other scientists or explorers. If other more eminent people agree with him, that's fine, otherwise not really.
You couldn't tell that by the way you respond to posts that don't tow your party line. All I'm suggesting is to lighten up a little and I hope your acknowledgment of the fact that no one is 100% correct will suggest to you the same.
Childish, dishonest drivel, since I have always made a point of making it clear that it is possible to adapt to raw dairy.
Yet you nonetheless haven't demonstrated a problem with citing him without caveat when it suits your purposes.
Drivel again, since I make it a point to cite other, more reliable sources that agree with him, and have made it clear when some of hs utterances did not agree with other sources.
Whatever you call it, you seem to carry it too far at times, including in this thread, and I'm not the only one who has noticed that. At least you've helped me to see that I was probably overly intolerant of dairy advocacy myself in the past, in part due to my being turned off by the WAPF fanaticism. That's why the claim that I'm a WP fanatic is so hilarious. Some in the pro-dairy crowd have tried to paint me as a pro-Cordain/Paleo fanatic with a knee-jerk anti-dairy zealotry. You can't both be right and the truth is that I'm neither, and between the two I've been closer to pro-Paleo zealotry than pro-dairy/WP zealotry, especially in the past.
I was turned off by the WAPF fanaticism but now I have seen the other extreme and it is even more distasteful. I suppose one benefit of your anti-dairy fanaticism is that it makes my views about dairy look extremely reasonable and moderate in comparison. So I thank you for that. ;D
Drivel, as usual. You really have a dishonest urge to rewrite your history as such. Like I said, you can't delete your past posts, so anyone who carefully checks them one by one will perceive your lies. As for me, what I stated was quite true. I usually only react to the more violent, fanatical pro-raw-dairy-advocates. Otherwise, I restrict myself to just pointing out how many RVAFers react badly to raw dairy and the like.
-
Citing one tiny, lone example does NOT give any remote credence to the notion that people get just as fanatical about raw dairy as with other foods. *sigh*
:head smack: How many times do I have to state that I'm not talking about just this forum? Several people at ZIOH went on pemmican-heavy or pemmican-only kicks (and pemmican was just one example of several foods that I mentioned that people tend to get emotional, obsessed or fanatical about):
Delfuego seemed to be convinced that pemmican was the world's best food and had his whole family on a pemmican-only diet for quite a while. He seemed to think that they would live on little more than pemmican and water indefinitely until he discovered that they could handle steaks too.
A former female member of ZIOH called pemmican "pemmi-crack" (as in an addictive substance) and praised it endlessly as super yummy and healthy despite cooking it very thoroughly.
Mel at ZIOH was so obsessed with pemmican that he stayed on a pemmican-only diet until he gave himself a severe folic acid deficiency and symptoms like...
> folic acid deficiency anemia (low hemoglobin and folic acid levels)
> scurvy-like red splotches and patches (due to blood) on the thighs and behind the knees (folic acid deficiency can reduce the absorption of vitamin C)
> sore and swollen knees difficult to bend
> leg pains and legs seizing up
> dizziness
> internal bleeding
> worsening of his chronic diarrhea
Yet despite all these symptoms he continued to eat a pemmican-only diet and tried to blame his symptoms on "standing wrong" until he had to go to the emerency room and get intravenous folic acid, vitamin C and vitamin K. Luckily he finally put aside the pemmican, but even now it seems he attributes the problems while on pemmican solely to his chronic diarrhea and says that someone who doesn't have diarrhea should be able to subsist fine on pemmican.
Charles tried pemmican-only but fared poorly. He said he developed leg soreness, low energy and dehydration. Luckily, he quit the pemmican-only diet but blamed the problems solely on dehydration and scoffed at the possibility of scurvy contributing to Mel's problems and agreed with Mel that Mel's problems were due entirely to Mel's chronic diarrhea.
And over at Paleofood William still occasionally raves about pemmican.
Are you not familiar with DurianRider and 30BAD?
Pure, deliberately vague generalisations.
If you say that then you must not be very familiar with them, because anyone who says anything they don't like quickly becomes the object of unpleasant remarks. If you did know much about them then you would have witnessed it happening to someone by now. DurianRider has even trolled this forum at times, according to the moderators, as I recall.
Well, at least you very grudgingly admit that neither Cordain nor Audette were strict re their interpretations and allowed compromises of various sorts.
The only grudgingness is in your elaborate imagination. You seem to assume the worst of people and then seek to prove it.
"If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." --David Swift, director
Strictness is also a relative term. Some think that Cordain and Audette were too strict for putting dairy fats on their lists of forbidden foods and some think they weren't strict enough in allowing certain things.
As for the very few who state things like "dairy is not palaeo", in almost all cases, such people are talking about their own or others' experiences re not doing too well on dairy, so their statements are perfectly valid.
Did you become the mindreader and spokesperson of every Paleo dieter who has ever dismissed discussion with a "dairy is not Paleo" type quip? This smacks of defensiveness. And "perfectly"? That's a good example of the excessiveness of your language on the dairy topic.
I'm afraid that since you are not a Global Moderator, you do not have the opportunity to delete your's or others' posts, so any steadfast perusal of your past posts shows the exact opposite of what you are pretending to claim. To slightly misquote Martin Luther:- "Hier stehst du! Du kannst nicht anders!"
Balderdash! Some citations or positive comments about Weston Price's work do not fanaticism make. Weston Price exaggerated and you far outdo him in that regard. You can hardly claim that I'm a WP fanatic with any honesty when you already grudgingly admitted that I disagree with him 20% of the time.
Are you familiar with Stephan Guyenet's blog? Stephan draws more heavily on WP than I do. If I'm a WP fanatic, then I suppose that makes Stephan a superfanatic? LOL
B*llsh*t, and more equivocation.
Meaningless blather as usual.
Besides, another obvious explanation exists:- you just liked to argue for the sake of arguing so chose a pro-WP argument just in order to play devil's advocate. Childish.
Heheh, well, you do bring out some of the devil in me, but then that would mean I'm not really a WP fanatic after all despite your ridiculous claims.
B*llsh*t again.
The king of bullshit flatters me. I'm really nowhere near as practiced in the art as you, but thanks anyway.
Like I said before, I quote WP's points mainly only when they are corroborated by other scientists or explorers. If other more eminent people agree with him, that's fine, otherwise not really.
If you only quote WP when more eminent people agree with him and you despise him so, then why bother quoting him at all? Why not just quote the more eminent folk? Surely your quoting of him shows that you believe he provided at least some interesting evidence or made some salient points?
Childish, dishonest drivel, since I have always made a point of making it clear that it is possible to adapt to raw dairy.
If you believe that then why do you give raw dairy advocates such a hard time?
Drivel again, since I make it a point to cite other, more reliable sources that agree with him, and have made it clear when some of hs utterances did not agree with other sources.
See above.
Your outrage against WP and his devotees would be more convincing if you didn't use him to suit your own purposes.
You really have a dishonest urge to rewrite your history as such.
In your dictionary, "dishonest" means "doesn't agree with Tyler Durden."
Like I said, you can't delete your past posts, so anyone who carefully checks them one by one will perceive your lies.
I doubt that many perceive them in the distorted way you do, if any.
As for me, what I stated was quite true. I usually only react to the more violent, fanatical pro-raw-dairy-advocates. Otherwise, I restrict myself to just pointing out how many RVAFers react badly to raw dairy and the like.
I'll let raw-al, Citrushigh, KD and others be the judge of that. If they think you've been completely reasonable then I'll accept that.
BTW, I asked my best friend if she had ever heard me mention Weston Price and she said "Who?" Case closed. Some fanatic.
-
TD does seem to give more credence to a possible universe of which dairies usefulness exists than some..after some prying anyway. On top of that there is personal bias but its true that dairy proponents will have their own biases and viewpoints on various symptoms and so forth. Based on this sites origins as and as a balance opposed to a Primal forum (although which there isn't a similar one to RPF) it seems OK to me that dairy should have a guilty until proven innocent kind of status..but even accepting that often times i'm certainly like "woah..."
I can't say reasonable is the first word that comes to mind....
Although I can't say I am entirely reasonable on this or other issues either. I mean I have my own few hot-button issues but other than that I don't really comment about someone praising say.. stored coconut products even though I think these are crap foods. I don't avoid 'aisle 3' because of fear of 'the plague'. I just avoid eating them and if I eat them and I do so thinking they are second rate foods. Unless someone has some kind of complaint that I can direct towards what they are eating or is just vehemently arguing they have some magic potion then there is really no foul by me.
I also have my own ideas of why people might do poorly on specific types of dairy foods, but I generally don't mention what those are for the same reason that people arn't looking for that information usually and also other than my own experiences and others teachings I can't say for sure. I know for myself that I seem to do better with dairy fats than strictly frozen marrow and/or suet which I will do from time to time. Possibly if I wasn't doing those animal fats (due to them being frozen or some other idea) maybe I similarly would be doing not as well but for me butter actually ranks last taste-wise. I spent quite a few years without dairy and on raw carbs and I find that dairy-or-not fats are the way to go at least in my present situation. So that brings me back to the above comparison where dairy foods are top functioning and not chosen for other reasons or preferences. Its important to be informed on all sides of things, and certainly if there were apparent problems that outweighed benefits I'd have plenty of other foods to eat that I prefer anyway. Also I believe if I had tried a 'milk and meat' diet before (and likely now still) I would have been off the diet along time ago with terrible problems...so basically that is where I am coming from regarding the OP issue.
Other than what I already said with paleo 'trumps' type arguments, the main area of concern is in the Welcoming Forum where often people are just listing what they are doing. These folks obviously are already interested in raw and paleo concepts and probably aware of paleo definitions and yet have to be inundated with such flak even when they aren't reporting any kind of problems or symptoms or desire for such information. All this does is bring 'fanatics' and arguments into that forum and likely push people away.
I think it was Yuri (rawlion) IICR that said even the dead can digest butter. heh heh. good times. I wouldn't say he is a fanatic by any means...
-
TD does seem to give more credence to a possible universe of which dairies usefulness exists than some..after some prying anyway.
Yes, grudgingly.
Based on this sites origins as and as a balance opposed to a Primal forum (although which there isn't a similar one to RPF) it seems OK to me that dairy should have a guilty until proven innocent kind of status..
I argued for a guilty until proven innocent status myself and took a shellacking for it from someone outside the forum. However, since as you say there isn't a really active Primal forum (there is Primal Friends and Vinny Pinto's forum, but they are much less active than this one) to give a good home to raw dairy lovers, I can understand some of them coming here. Plus there are Primal and raw WAPF sections in this forum, so it seems like they deserve a little more slack than what TD was giving early on in this thread.
but even accepting that often times i'm certainly like "woah..."
I can't say reasonable is the first word that comes to mind....
Yup
Other than what I already said with paleo 'trumps' type arguments, the main area of concern is in the Welcoming Forum where often people are just listing what they are doing. These folks obviously are already interested in raw and paleo concepts and probably aware of paleo definitions and yet have to be inundated with such flak even when they arn't reporting any kind of problems or symptoms or desire for such information. All this does is bring 'fanatics' and arguments into that forum and likely push people away.
Sounds reasonable to me.
-
And over at Paleofood William still occasionally raves about pemmican.http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/7/16R.abstract
Again, just because a tiny few like William are overly hysterical does not mean all others in the same community are fanatical - I mean Lex and others are far more typical. By contrast, when I suggested, years ago, on other forums, that raw dairy might be a problem, I got shouted down. The worst I got from raw vegan forums was being banned if I mentioned meats, but otherwise they were fine, and those who merely frowned on meat and preferred veg were fine. Of course, my raw vegan phase happened over a decade ago, so maybe there has been a sudden rise in fanaticism since, but I doubt it.
While there are clearly other reasons for the fanaticism of raw-dairy drinkers, one other obvious reason comes to mind. Raw dairy, unlike raw veg or raw meats, is openly banned in many US states etc., so that raw dairy consumers tend to react violently about any criticism of raw dairy re ill-effects, since the government health-authorities themselves constantly go on about the dangers of raw dairy.
If you say that then you must not be very familiar with them, because anyone who says anything they don't like quickly becomes the object of unpleasant remarks. If you did know much about them then you would have witnessed it happening to someone by now. DurianRider has even trolled this forum at times, according to the moderators, as I recall.
Citing lone examples such as 1 or 2 trolling attempts by one person like DR does not make an entire community seem fanatical. Anyway, my own raw vegan experiences occurred over a decade ago, involving yahoo groups etc.
The only grudgingness is in your elaborate imagination. You seem to assume the worst of people and then seek to prove it.
"If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." --David Swift, director
Strictness is also a relative term. Some think that Cordain and Audette were too strict for putting dairy fats on their lists of forbidden foods and some think they weren't strict enough in allowing certain things.
Equivocation as usual. The fact is that both Cordain and Audette were not strict and catered to all needs, by offering "paleo-lite" and "palaeo-hardcore", as well as a midway approach.
Did you become the mindreader and spokesperson of every Paleo dieter who has ever dismissed discussion with a "dairy is not Paleo" type quip? This smacks of defensiveness. And "perfectly"? That's a good example of the excessiveness of your language on the dairy topic.
Childish, since the use of that word was clearly not meant in an absolute sense. I simply meant that there are other reasons why people might say "dairy is not palaeo", other than simple dogma. Besides, I have not come across that type of argument that often on paleo forums. Paleofood, for example, as a general whole,tends to accept that some members like to use dairy.
Balderdash! Some citations or positive comments about Weston Price's work do not fanaticism make. Weston Price exaggerated and you far outdo him in that regard. You can hardly claim that I'm a WP fanatic with any honesty when you already grudgingly admitted that I disagree with him 20% of the time.
A later, calculated change of tune on your part does not excuse prior fanaticism.
Are you familiar with Stephan Guyenet's blog? Stephan draws more heavily on WP than I do. If I'm a WP fanatic, then I suppose that makes Stephan a superfanatic? LOL
There are degrees in everything. So, maybe you are the equivalent of Jim Bakker to Guyenet's Reverend Jim Jones?
Heheh, well, you do bring out some of the devil in me, but then that would mean I'm not really a WP fanatic after all despite your ridiculous claims.
Not at all. After all, there are some people who constantly change their views but who always instinctively take a fanatical extreme stance in each case.
If you only quote WP when more eminent people agree with him and you despise him so, then why bother quoting him at all? Why not just quote the more eminent folk? Surely your quoting of him shows that you believe he provided at least some interesting evidence or made some salient points?
I quote WP because the more reliable sources are not as highly visible as WP. Many of the sources don't even talk about diet, except in passing.
If you believe that then why do you give raw dairy advocates such a hard time?
I don't, though. So far, I only react when a raw dairy fanatic goes over the top. Otherwise, I am happy to live and let live. If I really were so fanatical, I would not have been the one to insist on starting(and keeping) the primal diet forum, among other raw-dairy-related forums.
Your outrage against WP and his devotees would be more convincing if you didn't use him to suit your own purposes.
I attack WP where he is flawed, but happily defend him when he's right. When WP does not have any solid evidence to back his claims, then I have a right to criticise him.
In your dictionary, "dishonest" means "doesn't agree with Tyler Durden."
No, it means not using dodgy tactics to try to win an argument.
I doubt that many perceive them in the distorted way you do, if any.
Trust me, some others do.....
I'll let raw-al, Citrushigh, KD and others be the judge of that. If they think you've been completely reasonable then I'll accept that.
BTW, I asked my best friend if she had ever heard me mention Weston Price and she said "Who?" Case closed. Some fanatic.
I don't really see those as wholly unbiased icons of moral rectitude. As for friends(and relatives for that matter), they are routinely notorious for having a mental "blind-spot" where they are unable to see the flaws of those closest to them, whereas others further away can...
Couldn't we get back to the subject of the thread re what dangers various raw dairy products provide? This sniping back and forth is so boring...
-
After all, there are some people who constantly change their views but who always instinctively take a fanatical extreme stance in each case.
Generally quite the opposite. After all, the definition of a fanatic is "one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." (Winston Churchill, http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/topics/creating_positive_change_quotes.html)
If I've changed my mind as you claim, then that suggests that your accusation that I'm a fanatic is erroneous. And on that note, I give up, because I'm bored of this.
Couldn't we get back to the subject of the thread re what dangers various raw dairy products provide? This sniping back and forth is so boring...
Good, I'm glad you agree, though I notice you couldn't help making many more snipes before claiming to be bored of it. LOL I hope this means you won't be sniping at raw Al, CitrusHigh or KD either.
Wow. I had no idea dairy caused all these problems! And to think of the amount of pasteurized milk that is consumed by my family alone and extrapolating that is unfathomable to think of all the people completely unaware.
TD's experience and mine and eveheart's have been poor with dairy, whereas others have reported positive experiences. You might have a completely different experience than Tyler's. Some report that clarified butter (aka ghee) is easier to tolerate, though I found that I didn't handle it well. Others report that they thrive on the fermented dairy products you mentioned. The only way to find out for sure how you handle dairy is to test it for yourself, such as with elimination for 4 weeks or so followed by a challenge. If you can eat marrow, suet, egg yolks and other animal fats, then there's probably no need to eat dairy. Some people don't want to eat animal body fats, in which case dairy fats might be an acceptable substitute, depending on the individual.
-
Being able to change one's mind is, of course, well within a fanatic's capability, given the many fanatics in Earth's history who have fully switched sides when it was convenient etc. :-
Here's the official version, which says nothing of fanaticism being defined by belief in just 1 approach:-
"fanaticism
an extreme and uncritical zeal or enthusiasm, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n., adj. — fanatical, adj.
See also: Attitudes
the character, spirit, or conduct of a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n."
-
"fanaticism. an extreme and uncritical zeal or enthusiasm, as in religion or politics....
Getting right down to definitions, I have decided that it is not fanaticism that I abhor, but the aggressive, judgmental, disposition to dominate others. That is to say, when the uncritical zeal of the fanatic turns to proselytizing, I find that irritating, even when the proselytism is not directed to me.
-
Being able to change one's mind is, of course, well within a fanatic's capability, given the many fanatics in Earth's history who have fully switched sides when it was convenient etc. :-
Here's the official version, which says nothing of fanaticism being defined by belief in just 1 approach:-
"fanaticism
an extreme and uncritical zeal or enthusiasm, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n., adj. — fanatical, adj.
See also: Attitudes
the character, spirit, or conduct of a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n."
I think you may be thinking of "demagogue", but either way I'm not interested in debating the word definition. I am surprised that you're disagreeing with Churchill on this one, though. I would have guessed you to be a Churchill fan.
-
Getting right down to definitions, I have decided that it is not fanaticism that I abhor, but the aggressive, judgmental, disposition to dominate others. That is to say, when the uncritical zeal of the fanatic turns to proselytizing, I find that irritating, even when the proselytism is not directed to me.
Yes, good point. Fanatics that keep to themselves don't bother anyone else. It's the proselytizers who have the potential to annoy.
I think some diet forum posters may proselytize untintentionally, via lazy wording. This basic scenario is pretty common on dietary forums:
Person A: "I'm really thriving on raw milk. Raw milk is the key to good health."
Person B: "I don't thrive on raw milk. It's not the key to my good health."
Person A: "I was talking about me rather than everyone." [Except person A didn't originally specify this. A lot of aggravation could probably be avoided if everyone was careful to specify when they're talking just about their own experience, as in "Raw milk is the key to my good health." The brief writing style of Instant messaging, cell phone texting, Twitter and Blackberries seems to be making this problem worse.]
-
I think you may be thinking of "demagogue", but either way I'm not interested in debating the word definition. I am surprised that you're disagreeing with Churchill on this one, though. I would have guessed you to be a Churchill fan.
I know, that was clever to assume that, being English, I might be a Churchill fan. Unfortunately, I happen to be a history buff and happen to be well aware that Churchill was not as wonderful as he tried to seem to be. This incompetent was directly responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign and his foul-up re the Gold Standard directly led to the General Strike of 1926.If not for the US...
-
I know, that was clever to assume that, being English, I might be a Churchill fan.
Your assumption that I assumed it just because you're English is wrong. Believe it or not, it is possible to be a fan of Churchill's without being English. [I have relatives who are fans of his (they even recommended that I read a book about him). It's somewhat surprising because they are also proud of their Irish roots and of the role that their ancestors played in the Irish struggle for Independence and they are no fans of the Black and Tans. I happen to be a fan of that quote and other Churchill quotes, though I don't know enough myself to determine whether I would be a fan of his overall--I suspect not. I do appreciate his role in WWII, though not his support of empire and his disaster in Gallipoli.] I was also thinking of your politics, interests, tastes and the aggressive, biting style you've displayed on this forum. I enjoy history and know an eensy weensy bit about Churchill and English history, so I saw some possible similarities, though I of course wasn't certain, which is why I said "guessed" rather than "assumed". Did you assume that because I'm an American I must know nothing about history, British or otherwise and would only know that Churchill was British? Unfortunately, many Americans do fit the stereotype of the "ignorant American" uninterested in world history or affairs, but I try not to do that.
Unfortunately, I happen to be a history buff and happen to be well aware that Churchill was not as wonderful as he tried to seem to be.
Not surprising. Few politicians are. I knew that you are a history buff and that Churchill was also, and this was another connection I noticed. So sorry if my guess offended you. It wasn't meant to. I didn't know that you despised him so.
This incompetent was directly responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign and his foul-up re the Gold Standard directly led to the General Strike of 1926.If not for the US...
I was aware of the Gallipoli disaster. I don't know a lot about it, but when I first read about it did surprise me that it didn't destroy his career. I forget how he revived his career. I remember that my grandfather claimed to have predicted that the British would be in for trouble if they attacked the Turks on their own mountainous home ground.
I wasn't aware of the gold standard and strike issues. I'll ask you about these things in a separate thread to avoid derailing this one.
-
There's something about diet that makes people appear as fanatics.
I think an element of it is that people want to believe in what they're eating. They're committed to health to take on a diet like raw paleo, or vegan or another difficult diet.
So there's part of them that doesn't want to allow the possibility that it's not perfect...because they want to believe that they're definitely doing the best thing for their health.
I agree it's much better to talk from your own experience, and think that it's good to accept that we may not have all the answers.
-
First Post.
I've been drinking a half-gal of raw, whole, grassfed cow's milk daily for a year, after considering myself "lactose intolerant" for decades.
Many surprising, unexpected health improvements coincided with this period. MANY.
My condolences for those who can't manage the raw dairy.
Monk
-
Dairy is a hormone cocktail. It dramatically increases intake of estrogens for example, about 60-80% of dietary estrogens come from dairy on average. Estrogen is something you definitely don't want to have in excess.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf061972e
-
Welcome, Monk. If you become a frequent poster here I prophesy that there will be rows between you and Tyler.
-
Dairy is a hormone cocktail. It dramatically increases intake of estrogens for example, about 60-80% of dietary estrogens come from dairy on average. Estrogen is something you definitely don't want to have in excess.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf061972e
In your opinion....
-
Dairy is a hormone cocktail. It dramatically increases intake of estrogens for example, about 60-80% of dietary estrogens come from dairy on average. Estrogen is something you definitely don't want to have in excess.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf061972e
Meat is also a hormone cocktail.
-
There's something about diet that makes people appear as fanatics.
I think an element of it is that people want to believe in what they're eating. They're committed to health to take on a diet like raw paleo, or vegan or another difficult diet.
So there's part of them that doesn't want to allow the possibility that it's not perfect...because they want to believe that they're definitely doing the best thing for their health.
I agree it's much better to talk from your own experience, and think that it's good to accept that we may not have all the answers.
Very well said. That in a nutshell speaks volumes about some of the stuff which is trotted out. Many diets work, some are better than others, for various reasons including the individuals physiology, psychology, immune system, available foods, employment, environment, climate and ethereal things such as the love involved in the preparation and even the state of mind of the food grower (farmer)
-
First Post.
I've been drinking a half-gal of raw, whole, grassfed cow's milk daily for a year, after considering myself "lactose intolerant" for decades.
Many surprising, unexpected health improvements coincided with this period. MANY.
My condolences for those who can't manage the raw dairy.
Monk
Wow! Dats a lotta cow juice!
What else do you eat regularly?
I was LI also with pasteurized milk but with raw I have no problems. I consume roughly 12 litres in 14 days.
-
Meat is also a hormone cocktail.
Not nearly as much as milk (or find a study that shows otherwise).
-
Not nearly as much as milk (or find a study that shows otherwise).
Foods contain a wide variety of substances that are known about at this time or will be discovered in the future. The individual components of food only tell a small part of the story. This is the reductionist theory of the world which is based on the current system of drugs which is essentially a handy way of selling things to the public under the guys of "scientifically studied" with such terms as DIN or "Drug Identification Number", a clever system which allows drug companies to patent their concoctions.
This system is dangerous, barbaric and designed strictly for the purpose of making money as the concoctions typically don't cure anything or do horrendous side damage. (side effects) Even the side effects are good for business as they require more meds. Their efficacy is measured in surprisingly low percentages as part of the certification process. The process is designed by scientists to make money and protect their "products" while keeping other systems locked out by their refusal to allow products that contain a multiplicity of active ingredients to be certified despite having thousands of years of practical knowledge and experience as "proof".
The vast amounts of money generated by this reductionist theory is useful in lobbying of government agencies to allow the reductionist products and no other.
-
Not nearly as much as milk (or find a study that shows otherwise).
Can you show me a study that shows that the elevated levels of hormones in raw milk is bad news? (in comparison to that in raw meat)
-
So we know that higher estrogen levels for example are strongly linked to some cancers, and we know that milk is particularly high in estrogens. Should we ignore these facts?
-
So we know that higher estrogen levels for example are strongly linked to some cancers, and we know that milk is particularly high in estrogens. Should we ignore these facts?
Only if you have proof via other studies that show cancers cropping up in people that consume raw milk.
You see the problem with your proposition is that you are assuming the individual components of a food do not interact with other components in a synergistic or antagonistic way. This is reductionistic thinking pure and simple.
The world abounds with foods that contain individual components that by themselves would be dangerous but when in concert with other components are like a symphony.
Your conclusions jump from a to b which is typical of the other "scientific" theories that have been touted to get people to only go out in the sun when slathered in sunscreen, eggs are dangerous, chow down on tofu or other soybean derivatives, and any number of other wild eyed ideas that made sense to the newspaper reporter at the time.
Where are the studies showing a link? Or is that another make work project for some more researchers?
-
Welcome, Monk. If you become a frequent poster here I prophesy that there will be rows between you and Tyler.
Indeed Phil. If he doesn't get banned first. On this forum, claiming to drink so much raw milk and experience benefits of all things is the worst kind of blasphemy possible, with the risk of losing membership and being shunned by the community. Good luck to you Monk.
-
The world abounds with foods that contain individual components that by themselves would be dangerous but when in concert with other components are like a symphony.
Sure, but in which foods does that symphony work well for us? Obviously not in cooked food, grains, etc. Why shouldn't we question dairy as well? It significantly changes the hormonal balance in the body after all.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976
RESULTS:
After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men. Urine concentrations of E1, estradiol, estriol and pregnanediol significantly increased in all adults and children. In four out of five women, ovulation occurred during the milk intake, and the timing of ovulation was similar among the three menstrual cycles.
-
Sure, but in which foods does that symphony work well for us? Obviously not in cooked food, grains, etc. Why shouldn't we question dairy as well? It significantly changes the hormonal balance in the body after all.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976
Still it is reductionist thinking. The study was based on 18 people. "Subjects were seven men, six prepubertal children, and five women". Were they thin, fat, tall, short, healthy, sick, lazy, athletic, SAD eaters, health food junkies, TV addicts, drug addicts, smokers, vegetarian, fruitarian, etc.
Was the study done by someone who had a dollar to be made off of selling something.
The milk used was specifically obtained from pregnant cows
There is the famous case of Nestles the giant junkfood company in the US that put on a big advertising campaign in Africa a number of years ago trying to convince the African women that their baby formula milk was much healthier than Mother's milk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
And to answer your question we should all question everything we eat, but not because of the "latest scientific research". If you believe a food is problematic give it up for a wek or a month and see what happens.
Dairy is problematic for a certain portion of the population as is probably every food known to man.
I cannot eat garlic or onions or hot spicy foods. However some people love it and thrive on it. So instead of wasting money on a big research project, I simply don't eat it.
-
Indeed Phil. If he doesn't get banned first. On this forum, claiming to drink so much raw milk and experience benefits of all things is the worst kind of blasphemy possible, with the risk of losing membership and being shunned by the community. Good luck to you Monk.
Rubbish. Despite the pro-raw dairy fanatics often being far too overly fanatical on the subject, they have been allowed a lot of leeway. Currently, the forum has no problem with people merely stating that raw dairy works well for their own bodies. What annoys people here, though, is that the pro-raw-dairy faction often such as trying to pretend that raw dairy can be consumed without any problems by the vast majority of the population despite evidence to the contrary, scientific and anecdotal. Like I said before, one of the main reasons is that there is a pro-raw-dairy lobby in the US(the country with the biggest proportion of raw food dieters) which is somewhat cult-like in behaviour due to government crackdowns on raw dairy. Also, given that pro-raw-dairy fanatics on other forums have tried to suppress any anti-raw-dairy comments people here naturally tend to react against similiar attempts by pro-raw dairy cultists on this forum.
-
Yes, and by the way the name of this forum is Raw Paleo Forum.
Animal milk was not consumed by humans in the paleolithic era (and even neither in South East Asia and Africa until very recently). Wild animals don't drink milk from other animal species and not even milk from their own specie when adults. Thus I fail to see what all these biased pro dairy arguments are doing here.
-
Yes, and by the way the name of this forum is Raw Paleo Forum.
Animal milk was not consumed by humans in the paleolithic era (and even neither in South East Asia and Africa until very recently). Wild animals don't drink milk from other animal species and not even milk from their own specie when adults. Thus I fail to see what all these biased pro dairy arguments are doing here.
Well, to be fair, there are 2 sub-forums within rawpaleoforum devoted to raw dairy among other raw aspects. We accept that there are some who do fine on raw dairy, we just don't accept that it is somehow illegal to caution against raw dairy, given that so many people develop problems with it.
-
Yes, and by the way the name of this forum is Raw Paleo Forum.
Sure and I haven't seen anyone here claim that milk is thoroughly Paleo. You're not saying that Tyler doesn't go overboard re: dairy are you? I don't think Tyler will ban the fellow. I just think there will probably be rows, and it looks like my prophecy is already coming true. ;D I have run into dairy fanatics--or more accurately, they ran over me ;)--so I can understand Tyler's impatience with dairy advocates, but I think witnessing Tyler's overreactions helps dissuade me from doing the same.
Also, it occurs to me that if the case against dairy is so clear-cut, then we should be able to easily handle any pro-dairy arguments here and it shouldn't be necessary to ban them, not that anyone was planning on doing so, of course.
-
Ok guys !
-
Yes, and by the way the name of this forum is Raw Paleo Forum.
Animal milk was not consumed by humans in the paleolithic era (and even neither in South East Asia and Africa until very recently). Wild animals don't drink milk from other animal species and not even milk from their own specie when adults. Thus I fail to see what all these biased pro dairy arguments are doing here.
Paleos had neither grocery stores, farms, refrigerators, couriers and all the scientific hoodoo that gets bandied about here, so that's hardly been an issue in the past here.
-
Actually, many Palaeos did have access to refrigeration as they were in an Ice Age and could routinely store their foods in the ice to freeze them.As for grocery stores, that is merely a question of convenience as,otherwise, we would have to spend most of our time hunting and gathering. Raw dairy is a whole different category, as it wasn't available in palaeo times in any real extent.
-
Welcome, Monk. If you become a frequent poster here I prophesy that there will be rows between you and Tyler.
Thanks for the welcome.
I noticed that Tyler also has posts promoting appearances by Aajonus, so he can't be that adamant against against "milkers".
-
In that first year, it's hard to say what else I ate regularly, but raw milk was the volumetric bulk of my diet. It was also the caloric bulk, as I was not eating a lot, although I didn't count calories. I was originally planning to drink a gallon a day, but I just wasn't that hungry.
I sometimes had home-cooked eggs and bacon for breakfast, and for dinner I had some variety of home cooked rice, cooked meat and uncooked, very sour kimchi meal at dinner. I also sometimes had fresh fruit such as apples, blueberries, ripe (brown) bananas, peaches, etc., but not a lot. Pretty much the same breakfast and dinner as I had before I started on the milk, but dinner was in smaller portions, and my mid-day meals and junk snacks were eliminated. Sometimes I had freshly made pizza for lunch, but I haven't done that in while. I haven't had bacon or pizza in many months.
In general I was trying to cut out anything not prepared at home, and much anything not raw, and exerted control over all ingredients - everything had to be as close to pre-industrial as possible (organic, pastured, etc.). The milk reduced my appetite for cooked meals even at home, and gradually my breakfast became raw milk cheese and apples, and/or raw pastured eggs, but sometimes I had a cooked omelet. Sometimes my wife would buy junk like potato chips, gelato, or a slice of chocolate cake from a gourmet who sells items at farmers markets; I would eat some of that, in part so she wouldn't eat all of it herself (the sacrifices I had to make), but I asked her not to get that stuff any more and she buys it less and less often (or successfully hides it from me).
I generally crave something to chew on during the day at work or I end up buying chips or similar junk; raw cheese and apples meet that need; raw eggs don't. I may try eating raw meat at work - my diet is now in evolution towards eating raw meat, but I don't have any plans to eliminate the milk.
One reason I tried and stuck with the raw milk program was that it really helped my digestion. I also no longer felt exhausted without taking vitamins, so I was able to stop taking vitamins (I took Vitamin D boosts, 5000-10000 IU, maybe three times during the first three months, but nothing after that). Many other benefits followed, pretty shocking really, which is what gave credibility in my mind to the claims Aajonus makes for raw dairy and meat.
For the last month, my dinner has been a quarter to half pound of grassfed beef for dinner; it's pre-frozen steak, to make it easier to cut. My wife chops it up and mixes it with fresh crushed garlic, some high quality sesame oil, sesame seeds, fresh ground black pepper, salt (I asked her to stop when I found out), and a small amount of sugar (rapadura, but I asked her to replace it with unheated honey or nothing at all), which she places on a plate of sliced pears and tops with a pastured egg yolk. Maybe a bit too "gourmet" and not ideal, but it's what I started with and it's very tasty. It would do a restaurant proud, but I'd probably be OK at this point with just eating the chopped beef straight. It's hard to describe, but I was literally angry when I first tried the beef: I was so angry that I'd wasted my whole life not eating this stuff (I'm over 40).
I could say a lot more, so I'll stop.
Wow! Dats a lotta cow juice!
What else do you eat regularly?
I was LI also with pasteurized milk but with raw I have no problems. I consume roughly 12 litres in 14 days.
-
Animal milk was not consumed by humans in the paleolithic era (and even neither in South East Asia and Africa until very recently).
This is stated as fact. I'm haven't read scientific literature on this subject, but I hypothesize that (for argument's sake) a yak stomach used for carrying kefir would not survive as evidence. A Diet Coke can might not even survive as evidence.
Wild animals don't drink milk from other animal species and not even milk from their own specie when adults.
So when a hyena chomps down on a lactating emu, it first delicately squeezes the teats dry before tucking in?
Wild animals develop a taste for Happy Meals, if made available (at least, I think bears do), so I don't think it's a matter of choice that they don't drink milk into adulthood. Technology is not all bad.
-
Actually, many Palaeos did have access to refrigeration as they were in an Ice Age and could routinely store their foods in the ice to freeze them.As for grocery stores, that is merely a question of convenience as,otherwise, we would have to spend most of our time hunting and gathering. Raw dairy is a whole different category, as it wasn't available in palaeo times in any real extent.
OK understood why don't we just bury this hatchet.
-
...so I don't think it's a matter of choice that they don't drink milk into adulthood.
OK, correction - it may well be a matter of choice; they may get everything they need with their "regular" diet, such that they don't even think of stealing mother's milk from the babies. For me, I was looking for healthy, unprocessed, raw, natural, supercalifragilistic food, and I found it in raw dairy from grassfed cows. It is extremely convenient, it works for me, and I can afford it. To get a similar quantity of high quality fat etc. from raw meat would cost more and be less convenient, though I'm still looking into that.
Thanks for your time.
Monk
-
Also, it occurs to me that if the case against dairy is so clear-cut, then we should be able to easily handle any pro-dairy arguments here and it shouldn't be necessary to ban them, not that anyone was planning on doing so, of course.
With a wink and a nod, sure. ;)
-
Yes, and by the way the name of this forum is Raw Paleo Forum.
Animal milk was not consumed by humans in the paleolithic era (and even neither in South East Asia and Africa until very recently). Wild animals don't drink milk from other animal species and not even milk from their own specie when adults. Thus I fail to see what all these biased pro dairy arguments are doing here.
Do you drive a car? Surely that's not paleolithic. Nor is washing your clothes in a washing machine, storing your food in Ball jars with accompanying lids, and of course, cleaning your dishes with running water. The main reason, and only reason this forum is named raw paleo forum (or raw paleo diet forum as of the recent change), is because this site's creators edited their primal diets to remove all dairy and severely limit vegetable juice, only 2 factors of the primal diet, before creating this forum to pave the way for newcomers interested in raw animal food dieting. The raw paleolithic diet does not resemble the Loren cordain true paleolithic diet in any way other than being dairy free. Even the loren cordain paleolithic diet is known to contain large quantities of both fruit and vegetables (whole, raw), making it vastly different from raw paleo and making raw paleo look more and more like what it is, a slightly modified standard high fat/low carb primal diet.
Aajonus even counsels a primal dieter who will not eat meat for ethical reasons, as an example for my argument. Yet this man is considered a primal dieter on the primal diet by both himself and Aajonus. The modern term raw paleo diet as coined by Geoff and everyone's favorite self-appointed health guru, Vinny Pinto, who was the equivalent of the founding father, was created to branch off and dissociate from their dietary roots the normally dairy-rich primal diet as coined by Aajonus Vonderplanitz. To sum it up, it's complicated, but really we're all alike with different approaches to our raw primal diets. One last point: many people here on this forum will recognize Steffanson's research and other research Geoff has pointed them toward, but we gotta remember that Geoff found his raw diet thanks to Aajonus mainly with the other research only supplementing the original teachings of Aajonus that got him and consequently the rest of us going in the raw meat-based direction.
Sorry guys for the long drawn out reply.
-
I agree that I came to this diet via Aajonus(though some others came here via the cooked palaeo diet), but I find Aajonus' diet to be quite different from a rawpalaeodiet. The primal diet is way too artificial with too much raw honey, raw nuts and processed stuff like raw coconut cream. Also, the rawpalaeodiet isn't necessarily low carb - I mean there are rawpalaeos who eat 25 percent plus of their diet in the form of fruits and veg.
-
Do you drive a car? Surely that's not paleolithic. Nor is washing your clothes in a washing machine, storing your food in Ball jars with accompanying lids, and of course, cleaning your dishes with running water.
Isn’t this forum about diet? Driving a car and using modern technological devices such as computers and washing machines does not forbid you to eat raw paleo, as far as I know.
On the opposite, would it be ok to eat processed food and drink cow milk because you drive a car and use other modern technological devices?
-
You're right Iguana, just because we drive cars doesn't magically spare us from the damage of modern processed foods. It's an irrelevant argument often used by the critics of Paleo diets.
-
Isn’t this forum about diet? Driving a car and using modern technological devices such as computers and washing machines does not forbid you to eat raw paleo, as far as I know.
On the opposite, would it be ok to eat processed food and drink cow milk because you drive a car and use other modern technological devices?
This forum is mainly about diet, sure, but not completely. There are plenty of subsections on things other than diet, as well as even Geoff makes posts that are related to all sorts of alternative subject including one of his more recent postings. In fact, it appears less and less about diet, this forum, and more like a forum should be. About COMMUNITY and OPEN COMMUNICATION. And SHARED INTERESTS.
Again, you drive a car, use running water, etc. If you use all those things, then there's no reason to count out without any consideration any completely raw and unprocessed, health-giving foods based on the evolution myth or PURPORTED (not conclusive) dietary habits of a past era's people.
You're right Iguana, just because we drive cars doesn't magically spare us from the damage of modern processed foods. It's an irrelevant argument often used by the critics of Paleo diets.
Exactly, PROCESSED FOODS. Raw milk, more than 4 or 5 raw eggs a day, greater quantities of raw honey, are far from being processed foods.
Also, if raw paleo man (if such an evolutionary concept truly exists) had access to health-giving raw honey, large quantities of eggs, vegetable juicers, unpasteurized dairy including milk and butter, and even raw tomatoes (nightshade), it doesn't take a scientist to know that paleo man would have utilized these foods to his benefit. The concept that these foods would have negatively affected him/harmed him, these raw health-giving foods, is preposterous and based on biased and restrictive thinking.
You're a Primal Dieter! I'm a Primal Dieter! We're all Primal Dieters! Na na na na na, na na na! :D (There's no guitar playing/rock n roll face)
-
Also just realized something, we all better stop driving cars, using running water, etc, because it turns out this forum is named:
Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
In other words, lifestyle, as in, technologies and all, are inclusive. :o
-
One last thing:
I agree that I came to this diet via Aajonus(though some others came here via the cooked palaeo diet), but I find Aajonus' diet to be quite different from a rawpalaeodiet. The primal diet is way too artificial with too much raw honey, raw nuts and processed stuff like raw coconut cream. Also, the rawpalaeodiet isn't necessarily low carb - I mean there are rawpalaeos who eat 25 percent plus of their diet in the form of fruits and veg.
Geoff, how is:
1. raw honey too artificial?
2. occasional raw nuts too artificial?
3. coconut cream "processed" (like saying vegetable juice is "processed," lol) and too artificial?
Also, I know primal dieters who eat plenty of fruits and vegetable juice. One being myself. I'm still primal nevertheless.
-
One last thing:
Geoff, how is:
1. raw honey too artificial?
2. occasional raw nuts too artificial?
3. coconut cream "processed" (like saying vegetable juice is "processed," lol) and too artificial?
Also, I know primal dieters who eat plenty of fruits and vegetable juice. One being myself. I'm still primal nevertheless.
Most PDers follow AV's advice and hardly eat any fruit and just drink juiced veg, not eating solid veg.
Coconut cream, like veggie juice, is indeed processed. Processing can cause all sorts of problems. I for example have no real issues with solid raw coconuts, but get appalling, nasty stomach aches after eating any raw coconut oil. Raw honeycomb is fine if eaten in small quantities(palaeo peoples would never have been able to eat much honey), but raw honey minus the wax is also a bit too processed. Raw nuts are used too much, given AV always using them in his recipes - nuts contain antinutrients so are not ideal in quantity.
-
Most PDers follow AV's advice and hardly eat any fruit and just drink juiced veg, not eating solid veg.
Coconut cream, like veggie juice, is indeed processed. Processing can cause all sorts of problems. I for example have no real issues with solid raw coconuts, but get appalling, nasty stomach aches after eating any raw coconut oil. Raw honeycomb is fine if eaten in small quantities(palaeo peoples would never have been able to eat much honey), but raw honey minus the wax is also a bit too processed. Raw nuts are used too much, given AV always using them in his recipes - nuts contain antinutrients so are not ideal in quantity.
Most raw paleo dieters eat no raw vegetables and minimal fruit (some even go "zero carb").
But that's coconut oil, not coconut cream. Coconut cream is just prechewed and fiber removed coconut meat. It's about as processed as chewing coconut meat counts as processing, in fact, it's even less processed since our mouths add saliva to the mix, the only true difference between coconut meat and cream.
What about the people who have trouble with vegetable fiber? Aajonus says that when we eat whole vegetables, the only portion of the vegetables we can digest is the juice of the vegetables and that our bodies separate that part from whole veggies throwing out the rest in our fecal matter undigested. So in other words, he says veggie juice is essentially just replicating what our body would extract but without the pulp it'd normally have to throw out. Veggie juice from a masticating juicer is no more processed than chewed vegetables, and in fact is less processed because of the lack of saliva in the mix.
When paleo man got a hold of honey, as I've seen the African tribes do on bizarre foods with andrew zimmerman, wouldn't they eat plenty of raw honey and honeycomb each one of them? If you just ransacked a vacant beehive, you're not gonna let any go to waste. Especially if you rarely get to feast like that. Again, that's what the African tribe did on bizarre foods.
Ask most long-term PDers, not just starting noobs, and they'd confirm for ya, we don't eat much raw nuts. That's a myth and misconception. Why? Because most of us have experienced no added benefits to our health eating them, not even for high adrenaline/high hormones (I have plenty and only exercise does the trick). I personally stopped eating nuts at all many many months ago after noticing this. Most PDers would agree. And most PDers who do recipes, only do sauces for meats, like that guy who posted his testimonial on youtube. His sauce was avocado, tomato, cucumber, etc. if I recall correctly. No nuts involved.
What symptoms have you noticed arise when people eat too much unheated honey? I'm hoping you don't ring off a list of genuine detox symptoms, but rather that you say genuine reactiosn to the honey itself as a substance.
-
Also just realized something, we all better stop driving cars, using running water, etc, because it turns out this forum is named:
Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Why would it necessarily be an absolute binary choice of all or nothing? I've seen critics of Paleo and raw eating say this and I can't fathom why anyone would think this. I've never seen any leader in the Paleo movement claim that one can only do Paleo if one does everything 100% like it was done during the Paleolithic. It's not only unnecessary, it's impossible. The criticism is thus irrelevant and one of the most assinine of criticisms I've seen so far. It would be like arguing that someone can't eat low carb unless they eat absolutely 100.00% zero carb (which is probably impossible, as I think there are trace carbs even in meats and fish).
Most raw paleo dieters eat no raw vegetables and minimal fruit (some even go "zero carb").
I would be surprised if that is the case. My guess would be that the majority eat some veggies and a fair amount of fruit.
Does Aajonus never eat coconut water and if so, do you know why?
-
Well Phillip, you understand the point I was trying to make, that the whole kangaroo trial for aajonus and the primal diet is absurd, and that we're all of the same bloodline metaphorically speaking regardless of the words used to name this forum and the diet of the majority who use it.
Funny that you brought that up. Actually, Aajonus does drink coconut water. In fact, I served him a glass personally. When offered vegetable juice on the other hand, he refused it. Might have just been the occasion. Either that, or he's starting to turn raw paleo. ;)
-
Even mild processing can affect people. Some RVAFers have, for example, had issues with raw, ground meats but not raw, non-minced meats. Juicing veg also causes lots of problems for people - it's been suggested that this is because juicing makes not only the nutrients more bioavailable, but also the antinutrients as well.
And there are plenty of RVAFers who eat lots of fruit. The RZCers are merely a minority. On this forum, there happen tp be mostly low-carbers but the rest of the RVAF diet spectrum eat far higher amounts of fruit and veg.
AV seems to view nuts as a mainstay of his recipes book, but anyway....
-
Blimple and all dairy proponents, if you wanna know, there’s a very simple experiment anyone can do: stop eating any dairy for some months to lose your habituation to it. Then reintroduce it and see what happens.
-
I did that actually. When I started milk again I immediatly recovered faster and felt more energetic. I agree that it as absolutely not for everyone but for some it can be a real good wholesome food.
-
I intend to stop consuming dairy at the end of autumn until late spring, when the quality of milk is much lower.
-
I intend to stop consuming dairy at the end of autumn until late spring, when the quality of milk is much lower.
I've been thinking about doing that too. I will store away quite a bit of raw grassfed butter for winter use though. Grass fed butter is packed with minerals and fat soluable vitamins essential for bone/dental health. Off course I coud get those from other foods but butter is a very convienient "all in one" package regarding dental health.
-
I did that actually. When I started milk again I immediatly recovered faster and felt more energetic. I agree that it as absolutely not for everyone but for some it can be a real good wholesome food.
How long did you stop eating dairy? Were you eating 100% raw with enough animal food at the time and before? if before, how long before?
-
No I stopped dairy when not eating raw(6 months or so). Shortly after i started eating raw i also started eating raw dairy.
-
I've been thinking about doing that too. I will store away quite a bit of raw grassfed butter for winter use though. Grass fed butter is packed with minerals and fat soluable vitamins essential for bone/dental health. Off course I coud get those from other foods but butter is a very convienient "all in one" package regarding dental health.
I was also considering storing butter and maybe some homemade cheese for the winter, but I haven't got enough money to buy in bulk. But I'm interested to see if I notice a difference after cutting out the dairy anyway. But I'm not going to cut it out till winter because I like it too much lol
-
homemade kefir cheese hmmm good idea! curious how well it will store..
-
No I stopped dairy when not eating raw(6 months or so). Shortly after i started eating raw i also started eating raw dairy.
Ok, I see. You won’t be able to highlight the nuisance of dairy products in such a situation. When we eat cooked food, our immune system is so much saturated with a ceaseless intake of abnormal molecules that it doesn’t react anymore. It is in a state of tolerance (like on strike because there’s ways too much work). You’ve got to get it out of this state of tolerance, and for that you have to eat 100% raw for some time – usually a few months.
-
Ok, I see. You won’t be able to highlight the nuisance of dairy products in such a situation. When we eat cooked food, our immune system is so much saturated with a ceaseless intake of abnormal molecules that it doesn’t react anymore. It is in a state of tolerance (like on strike because there’s ways too much work). You’ve got to get it out of this state of tolerance, and for that you have to eat 100% raw for some time – usually a few months.
I think I hear a sore loser. ;) Obviously, dairy wasn't a problem for his man. Plus, how can you claim that any negative symptom is bad and should be avoided at all costs, when one of the most health giving functions of the body, infectious disease, is the quickest and easiest way to detoxify the body in a modern toxic world. Especially in those who have stuffed and snailing along lymphatic systems. And the symptoms of these VITAL detoxes can be quite horrendous, as everyone from Aajonus to Vinny Pinto has described. According to Aajonus, these sometimes awful detoxifications are the only way to truly clean your body out. Without them, you will remain toxic or only get more toxic.
So if a certain food tends to induce more detoxification (such as dairy for many people), then how is avoiding it truly benenficial? Many people claim eating "too many" eggs induces unwanted symptoms (called detox; remember how high eggs are in detox-inducing sulfur folks), yet these symptoms aren't a sign of an "intolerance" or "allergy." Same for coconut products. How can we demonize these products when in reality they're bringing us a simply more aggressive and quicker, and even better targeted, solution to our health woes, even if at the cost of a few nasty symptoms for a short span of time.
Now, as far as digestion issues and other true symptoms of "problems" on the PD or RPD, look to Bruce Lee aka Bruce K aka Ian C of HEDing or Matt Stone of Rest and Refeed. Adding carbohydrates in greater quantities to your PD or RPD can have a positive impact on your metabolism and digestion, even in the form of lots of "tooth-loosening" fruits. But again, that's a matter of not enough carbohydrates, not excessive dairy.
-
Sore loser if you want… Thanks for your comprehensive answer anyway. You can have all the dairy you want, it won’t harm me! I don’t care about Aajonus, Vinny Pinto or the other guys unknown to me you cite. I just wonder why people believe what those fanciful folks say while ignoring the scientific work of GC Burger, a work based on flawless logic, continuous questioning of all beliefs (including his own findings) and several decades of meticulous experimentations and observations.
Cheers
François
-
It is rather unwise to cite Bruce K on this forum as he is a notorious former troll of other raw forums, someone who randomly changes his fanatical dietary viewpoint every few months, thus making it clear he has no real credibility. The carbs issue only applies to those who do badly on RZC, like me, and those people only need to add in a few carbs to get back to normal, they don't have to add in vast amounts.
As for the detox issue, that's invalid. That is, detox cannot be instigated by a particular food(except clay which actually has scientific data backing its detoxing abilities). So, if a particular food "causes more so-called detox than any other food", then that is a sign that that food is harming that person's health. Genuine detox does exist, such as when a rawist eats cooked food and then goes into detox to expel the poisons from that cooked food, and rawists do experience some minor detoxes at random as they slowly rebuild their bodies after decades on SAD diets, but that's all.
-
I think I hear a sore loser. ;) Obviously, dairy wasn't a problem for his man. Plus, how can you claim that any negative symptom is bad and should be avoided at all costs, when one of the most health giving functions of the body, infectious disease, is the quickest and easiest way to detoxify the body in a modern toxic world. Especially in those who have stuffed and snailing along lymphatic systems. And the symptoms of these VITAL detoxes can be quite horrendous, as everyone from Aajonus to Vinny Pinto has described. According to Aajonus, these sometimes awful detoxifications are the only way to truly clean your body out. Without them, you will remain toxic or only get more toxic.
So if a certain food tends to induce more detoxification (such as dairy for many people), then how is avoiding it truly benenficial? Many people claim eating "too many" eggs induces unwanted symptoms (called detox; remember how high eggs are in detox-inducing sulfur folks), yet these symptoms aren't a sign of an "intolerance" or "allergy." Same for coconut products. How can we demonize these products when in reality they're bringing us a simply more aggressive and quicker, and even better targeted, solution to our health woes, even if at the cost of a few nasty symptoms for a short span of time.
Now, as far as digestion issues and other true symptoms of "problems" on the PD or RPD, look to Bruce Lee aka Bruce K aka Ian C of HEDing or Matt Stone of Rest and Refeed. Adding carbohydrates in greater quantities to your PD or RPD can have a positive impact on your metabolism and digestion, even in the form of lots of "tooth-loosening" fruits. But again, that's a matter of not enough carbohydrates, not excessive dairy.
The concept of detoxes has been beat to death on this site.
Detoxes are a way of excusing poor dietary choices. When I started on the primal diet I read AV's stuff about detoxes. I would get colds periodically. I hadn't had a cold in years because in Ayurveda an illness is a sign that you are screwing up on you diet or some lifestyle choice. Indeed the bacteria are doing their job but why take on the toxins in the first place. I had an idea of the reason for the "detox" ;) ;) and gave up eating fruit, which solved the problem. The fruit was acidic which caused excessive Pitta which travelled uphill to my throat gave me a sore throat which devolved into a cold. This explanation does not necessarily hold true in another person's situation BTW.
I'm a bit confused by the twists and turns of this thread but will just say that anyone who "detoxes" ;) ;) after eating whatever it happens to be, is a fool to keep on eating it.
Don't even get me started on Vinny..... >:
-
I'm a bit confused by the twists and turns of this thread but will just say that anyone who "detoxes" ;) ;) after eating whatever it happens to be, is a fool to keep on eating it.
Don't even get me started on Vinny..... >:
On rawpaleoforum, you can expect a labrynth of discussion if you get the right set of conflicting beliefs in the same room. In fact, the beauty lies in these discussions and also attracts greater numbers of "guests" to join the community. We should all be proud of our heated discussions on this forum in my opinion, although we can do without the tarring and feathering that normally accompanies them.
Well, Raw-al, you said the magic words. What's your opinion on and beef with the self-appointed health nut guru.
Sore loser if you want… Thanks for your comprehensive answer anyway. You can have all the dairy you want, it won’t harm me! I don’t care about Aajonus, Vinny Pinto or the other guys unknown to me you cite. I just wonder why people believe what those fanciful folks say while ignoring the scientific work of GC Burger, a work based on flawless logic, continuous questioning of all beliefs (including his own findings) and several decades of meticulous experimentations and observations.
Cheers
François
I'll make a deal with you, François. If you read Aajonus' books with an open mind and open gut (might be difficult since you're so deep into the anti-raw dairy dogma), then I'll read RC Cheeseburger's books with an equally open mind. What do you say? Not too biased to take on this challenge, are ya?
It is rather unwise to cite Bruce K on this forum as he is a notorious former troll of other raw forums, someone who randomly changes his fanatical dietary viewpoint every few months, thus making it clear he has no real credibility. The carbs issue only applies to those who do badly on RZC, like me, and those people only need to add in a few carbs to get back to normal, they don't have to add in vast amounts.
As for the detox issue, that's invalid. That is, detox cannot be instigated by a particular food(except clay which actually has scientific data backing its detoxing abilities). So, if a particular food "causes more so-called detox than any other food", then that is a sign that that food is harming that person's health. Genuine detox does exist, such as when a rawist eats cooked food and then goes into detox to expel the poisons from that cooked food, and rawists do experience some minor detoxes at random as they slowly rebuild their bodies after decades on SAD diets, but that's all.
Bruce K may have been a troll, but his ideas weren't completely kooky, in fact some even made a whole lotta sense for a crazy troll. His change of dietary beliefs is no different than the change of beliefs that countless people across the world experience, including you yourself a long time ago. Character assination can't hide genuine intelligent pursuit, not in my eyes at least.
Tough guy (tyler durden, lol), if 90% of scientific studies according to one significant study news article are b*******, then how would your claim that only clay truly induces detox because it's backed by studies make sense? Or better yet, where are the references other than your own conclusions that prove that statement? Aajonus' claims regarding detox are based on experience, studying cadavers and how toxins store in them (he's even said that on the radio), as well as through iridological analysis of his clients over the years (which he has explained he didn't trust that science until it proved true with his girlfriend and the loose IUD in We Want To Live), not to mention testing fluids and tissue samples from detoxes for toxins resulting in positive test results. Your claims are based on your biased belief in my opinion that detox beyond colds/flus cannot exist. If not, please provide a reference or genuine expert to back up line two of your second paragraph. Also, explain Aajonus detoxifying epoxy leter on in the updated We Want 2 Live from a surgery when he was a teenager. Or explain the detoxifications in his newsletters of vaccines years later into the primal diet at random. Aajonus' own vaccine detox (tetanus; pictures included) came 50 years after recieving the vaccine!
-
Aajoinus has made numerous bogus claims in the past. For example, he has claimed that he did a huge amount of scientific research. When people, however, ask for him to provide the evidence for such research, he pretends that he can only obtain the results if people give him a million dollars or more. Then there's his ridiculous coyote story etc. So, kind of difficult to support his detox theories. Ironically, his claims re cooked food being unhealthy are easily proven by looking at the thousands of studies found on pubmed etc. which detail the precise damage caused by heat created toxins like advanced glycation end products etc. If he just cited those, he would have more crediblity.
The 90 percent claim is also ridiculous. For one thing, science advances by the mass of data. So, if we have a dozen studies favouring one side and only 1 study favouring the opposite side, then it is reasonable to assume that the former side is the correct stance. So, while 1 study may be wrong,(such as the study claiming 90 percent of all other studies are fraudulent), the studies as a whole prove the point.
As for clay, there is numerous evidence to back clay as a detoxer:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy#Impact_on_health
Parrots are known to eat clay rich soil in order to counter the buildup of toxins from the plants they eat etc.
As for Bruce K, he is hardly intelligent. His constant changing of dietary stance indicates strong orthorexia, among other things. My own formerly swift changing of dietary stance, 10 years ago, stopped once I found what worked for me - it is not comparable to Bruce K's absurd behaviour, since I was doing it solely for health, rather than trying to confuse people.
-
Well, Raw-al, you said the magic words. What's your opinion on and beef with the self-appointed health nut guru.
Reference AV I have never met the man. I've read two of his books and seen his video and his appearances on Youtube. We follow his diet more or less and we (mostly me ;D ) eat high meat and I accept some of his theories but not all.
Tyler gave the best description of him when he said something like... he is a cross between a genius and a charlatan.
Vinny is a slippery, con artist. He dumps on others quite liberally with the apparent objective amongst other things) of selling his services and products. He filters replies to his Yahoo group, allowing only the obsequious to slide through. The replies there almost seem like he wrote them himself. He even makes death threats about people he doesn't like. However thanks to him I discovered the raw diet.
-
Tyler gave the best description of him when he said something like... he is a cross between a genius and a charlatan.
Vinny is a slippery, con artist. He dumps on others quite liberally with the apparent objective amongst other things) of selling his services and products. He filters replies to his Yahoo group, allowing only the obsequious to slide through. The replies there almost seem like he wrote them himself. He even makes death threats about people he doesn't like. However thanks to him I discovered the raw diet.
Ouch! :o You really put a bandaid on that one with that last line. ;) And Geoff, wow, he really took a chunk out of Vinny. And I thought his stance on raw dairy was brutal and overreactive, lol.
Aajoinus has made numerous bogus claims in the past. For example, he has claimed that he did a huge amount of scientific research. When people, however, ask for him to provide the evidence for such research, he pretends that he can only obtain the results if people give him a million dollars or more. Then there's his ridiculous coyote story etc. So, kind of difficult to support his detox theories. Ironically, his claims re cooked food being unhealthy are easily proven by looking at the thousands of studies found on pubmed etc. which detail the precise damage caused by heat created toxins like advanced glycation end products etc. If he just cited those, he would have more crediblity.
The 90 percent claim is also ridiculous. For one thing, science advances by the mass of data. So, if we have a dozen studies favouring one side and only 1 study favouring the opposite side, then it is reasonable to assume that the former side is the correct stance. So, while 1 study may be wrong,(such as the study claiming 90 percent of all other studies are fraudulent), the studies as a whole prove the point.
As for clay, there is numerous evidence to back clay as a detoxer:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy#Impact_on_health
Parrots are known to eat clay rich soil in order to counter the buildup of toxins from the plants they eat etc.
As for Bruce K, he is hardly intelligent. His constant changing of dietary stance indicates strong orthorexia, among other things. My own formerly swift changing of dietary stance, 10 years ago, stopped once I found what worked for me - it is not comparable to Bruce K's absurd behaviour, since I was doing it solely for health, rather than trying to confuse people.
Geoff, Geoff, Geoff. Once again, let me start by saying the 90% quote was perfectly valid and I consider the point you tried to make to disprove that finding not even worthy of moot. Another ridiculous pro-BS research claim without a credible reference (lol). Ahem, I agreed with the clay one, but I also raise the fact that that more than clay can do that. Look at cilantro for instance. That's known to detoxify mercury. Aloe and bitter herbs are known to flush/detoxify the liver. Chlorella is known to detoxify heavy metals. Most of those things even have genuine 10% research behind them. Clay isn't the only detoxifier, and even milk can act as a detoxifier in its raw state, as can coconut cream, fruits, etc.
Moving on, I shall shoot an arrow through your anti-AV argument. Where's the reference for you claim that he's lying about his research? Have you ever poked at cadavers? Because Aajonus has, and people don't go around lying and saying "Oh yeah, I've digged into dead human corpses." And also how does he know the exact price for testing for toxins from the 70s as well as today if he's never actually done such research? Sure, he could look up modern prices to back up a hypothetical lie, but 70s and 80s prices, he'd have to do a bit of work to find those. And all this searching to put together a big lie? That sounds like something a CIA or NSA agent would do, not a health counselor. Aajonus doesn't make conspiracies, he fights them, and he risks his life in the process (reference: wewant2live.com newsletter november 2009).
Orthorexia is a made up disease. Just naother label like bipolar disease Yes, he did have a mental breakdown and did believe that PDers were trying to kill him (oy vay), but he did make an intelligent, experience-based effort to uncover interesting bits of health info. Again, no need for character assination, he did make some interesting points to say the least. I wouldn't call him "hardly intelligent" aka dumb (what you really mean). And when did Bruce ever admit to trying to confuse people? He may not have been so right, but he never attempted to throw people off the scent.
-
As usual, you got it wrong. The 90 percent figure study has been damned as being highly biased:-
http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/
and just one study(or review in this case, rather) of just a few studies does not validate attacking 90 percent of absolutely all studies. You need several studies, and such studies need to overwhelm the studies showing the opposite claim.
As for Aajonus, he specifically stated that he had done some pro-raw research some decades ago with a "friend" but that when he asked for the research, he was told that he needed 1 or 2 million dollars to get the research back because the relevant company had folded or some such nonsense. That is as lame as his coyote stories. Then there is his laughable claims re CIA agents supposedly injecting him with vaccines.
As for Bruce Kleisner, he has proven to be even dodgier than AV. And orthorexia is not a made-up disease, it is perfectly genuine - there are plenty of people like Bruce K who are always looking for the "perfect diet" who, of course, never find it. As a result of his bizarre behaviour, many people have been misled into trying all sorts of dangerous, weird diets such as Matt Stone's nonsense etc. No wonder AV-Skeptics imploded.
-
To quote Borat, Wah wah weh wah!
As usual, you got it wrong. The 90 percent figure study has been damned as being highly biased:-
http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/
and just one study(or review in this case, rather) of just a few studies does not validate attacking 90 percent of absolutely all studies. You need several studies, and such studies need to overwhelm the studies showing the opposite claim.
Still doesn't prove the validity of the 90%. And everyone knows how the pharmaceutical industries twist studies to get drugs approved and vaccines validated. If 90+% of studies are for pharmaceuticals, then in my opinion, the 90% claim would make absolute perfect sense. Otherwise, we're at a stalemate here, Geoffrey.
As for Bruce Kleisner, he has proven to be even dodgier than AV. And orthorexia is not a made-up disease, it is perfectly genuine - there are plenty of people like Bruce K who are always looking for the "perfect diet" who, of course, never find it. As a result of his bizarre behaviour, many people have been misled into trying all sorts of dangerous, weird diets such as Matt Stone's nonsense etc. No wonder AV-Skeptics imploded.
We get it Geoffy. You want to character assassinate Bruce Lee, aka Bruce Kleisner, aka Ian C, aka the original AV skeptic, but he still had ideas worthy of hearing out. Oh please, you know how many people have obsessive behaviours in this world? Find me someone who doesn't. Matt Stone is experimenting, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't condone every aspect of his diet, but he's going off of logic, reasoning, experience, and understanding, plus some theorizing. He isn't just making up things as he goes along even if he fumbles occasionally.
You know why AV-skeptics imploded? Because there's so much truth to Aajonus's teachings, and because the aggressive, hateful, chastising approach those guys adopted just leads to anarchy in the food science forum and utter self-destruction.
And orthorexia isn't a disease. That's nonsense. If anything, it's a behaviour. There is no physical defect that can be identified and associated with the behaviour. Read the work of Thomas Szasz.
-
Pure b*ll and obfuscation.
-
Pure b*ll and obfuscation.
Is that word paleo? ;D
-
Pure b*ll and obfuscation.
Blasphemy!
;)
-
I think I hear a sore loser. ;) Obviously, dairy wasn't a problem for his man. Plus, how can you claim that any negative symptom is bad and should be avoided at all costs, when one of the most health giving functions of the body, infectious disease, is the quickest and easiest way to detoxify the body in a modern toxic world. Especially in those who have stuffed and snailing along lymphatic systems. And the symptoms of these VITAL detoxes can be quite horrendous, as everyone from Aajonus to Vinny Pinto has described. According to Aajonus, these sometimes awful detoxifications are the only way to truly clean your body out. Without them, you will remain toxic or only get more toxic.
So if a certain food tends to induce more detoxification (such as dairy for many people), then how is avoiding it truly benenficial? Many people claim eating "too many" eggs induces unwanted symptoms (called detox; remember how high eggs are in detox-inducing sulfur folks), yet these symptoms aren't a sign of an "intolerance" or "allergy." Same for coconut products. How can we demonize these products when in reality they're bringing us a simply more aggressive and quicker, and even better targeted, solution to our health woes, even if at the cost of a few nasty symptoms for a short span of time.
Now, as far as digestion issues and other true symptoms of "problems" on the PD or RPD, look to Bruce Lee aka Bruce K aka Ian C of HEDing or Matt Stone of Rest and Refeed. Adding carbohydrates in greater quantities to your PD or RPD can have a positive impact on your metabolism and digestion, even in the form of lots of "tooth-loosening" fruits. But again, that's a matter of not enough carbohydrates, not excessive dairy.
I did all the dairy experiments I could get my hands on and none of them worked for me. I'm hopelessly lactose intolerant. I remember posting some of those experiments here in this forum.
-
All evidence/scientific research/whatever aside and instead simply thinking with my brain, I can find absolutely no reason why dairy would be beneficial to my diet. I can only see it as totally unnatural to me and therefore harmful. It is the most obvious thing. The greatest study on dairy couldn't tell me otherwise.
-
People have to eat something to survive and when eating raw those selections become quite limited as to what functions as food for repair as well as sustenance. On top of that..people can benefit from a variety of restrictions OR additions to their diet as well as other health practices to deal with various unnatural circumstances they have inherited. Basing a diet on hypothetical ideals divorced of that fact..is just plain ignorant..even if in many cases simply improving ones diet based on such ideology might be all that is necessary for some.
So much of the technology we do have is so poor that these contrary "radical" ideals become appealing. The thing is it can be scientifically proven that certain substances bind with other substances, that various vitamins and minerals supplied by food or sunshine can repair or even types of radiation (like infared) can remove harmful substances from the body etc... In extremes like actually ingesting outright posions these tools can be life or death but somehow there is often only the extremes of obsession over internal "poisons" or complete denial/fantasy as to how these things become resolved.
Without getting into too many unknowns, its just not scientific to say that substances like dairy cannot help aid in this process particularly since it does supply its own unique and abundant blend of minerals and properties even if it is accompanied by supposed harmful substances.
If someone subtracts dairy from their diet (first we have to assess what type of dairy we are talking about) or chooses against it then by default one is going to have to make up that deficit with more meat proteins, carbs from fruits or large amounts of vegetables or plant fat, or pure animal fat sources that are likely frozen and not as effective for certain things as fresh dairy fats.
Likely with a little searching you are going to find many arguments citing problems with excessive consumption of any of these above just as with dairy. The only real argument then comes back to peoples own experiences or some abstract idea of what is good or natural divorced of those experiences.
Just based on my experience and talking to others who have indeed tried alot of variations on raw - without assuming dairy is a perfect food devoid of problems - a diet constructed with certain kinds of dairy products can function far better than a lot of other raw foods or diets one can construct from those foods. It also seems to be plenty of empirical evidence that people have healed things through use of dairy products or at the very least while consuming them..so any real conversation of such should be dealing with what exactly the cons are and if they outweigh the pros..and not focused on how adding or subtracting dairy is some magic panacea because that is far too simplistic. Saying that dairy can't possibly cause someone to succeed where they couldn't with other approaches..is certainly just as skirting of basic evidence as saying all people can handle dairy.
---
Seems to me that detoxes are legitimate as long as they result in further objective benchmarks of health and not in most other cases. Also if acute symptoms resolve and become less frequent while doing the same diet more or less.
People obsessed with detoxes without actually having objective plateaus of health or people trying to redefine health based merely on following a program to a T or some other abstraction unrecognized by others - be they primal dieters of vegans or paleo dieters - would do well to go explore something else and possibly be open to something like adding or subtracting dairy or fruits or whatever other thing.
-
Grassfed butter makes me so happy.
-
Well Phillip, you understand the point I was trying to make, that the whole kangaroo trial for aajonus and the primal diet is absurd, and that we're all of the same bloodline metaphorically speaking regardless of the words used to name this forum and the diet of the majority who use it.
Does Aajonus consider his Primal diet to be of the same bloodline as raw Paleo diets and what does he think about the founding hypothesis, that the main source of diseases of civilization is biological discordance with modern factors, particularly modern foods, and that biological harmony tends to produce good health?
-
Blimpie was outed as a previous troll and got banned.
-
I hope someone else will answer.
-
I hope someone else will answer.
I would say no. Seems to me the philosophy of PD goes pretty contrary to that. It clearly has little to do with the way one would literally eat in nature. It has its logical basis for the types and proportions of food included in the diet based on at least someones idea of biology/anthropology but many things are factored entirely for modern peoples issues rather than simply eating a diet we were meant to eat to restore health.
Pretty sure many 'paleo' diets practiced would be considered maintenance diets at best...and likely then as non optimal for reversing illness or for basic nutrition which are seen again as having different requirements in contemporary situations. Of course in nature people without already degenerative problems and toxic buildup etc...could live quite healthfully lacking many such protocols and possibly with a variety of foods or diets that are raw or even not..also less dependance on fats or restricting carbs or any other thing modern people choose to do.
I think many would argue that many toxins/medicines etc... buried in different types of tissue are far too stubborn and unnatural themselves to be fixed simply through stopping intake of them. At the very least some regular changeover of fats seems to be the smart move there.
Personally I think for people more or less without serious illness...many times just removing modern foods can return to some equilibrium and reasonable health...but this isn't necessarily the same as correcting deep seated problems or a life without disease. I guess the paradox is how long one goes on with 'detoxes' before they experience that.
Seems to me if the basis of disease is various types of pollution and other intake never meant to be absorbed into human beings..that the mechanisms for healthy storage and 'detox' of such things isn't exactly always in the complete purview of nature's wisdom. hence why many things like fasting - which indeed is a natural/instinctive mechanism- or other things that accelerate detoxification can be damaging for people that don't have the right circumstances/nutrition to facilitate it well.
-
Thanks KD.