Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: seesawsemiology on October 02, 2008, 02:04:44 pm
-
is this something i should be concerned with or another bs hysteria like being scared of bacteria?
-
is this something i should be concerned with or another bs hysteria like being scared of bacteria?
It's a totally unnecessary scare started by environmentalists and PETA_activists who all have their own agenda. There was a study in the Seychelles where the children normally consume fish in c. 10 times the amounts that the average American eats. Ironically, it showed a slight improvement in neurological performance, even with all that mercury-intake. Here's the study:-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/uorm-ndr051503.php
There's also a website which exposes this whoe mercury-in-fish scam, which provides some useful data:-
http://www.fishscam.com/
There is another (Faroes Island) study which environmentalists cite, but it only showed a -0.25 IQ-point difference, and the trial was conducted for far less time than the Seychelles study - the latter study is still ongoing, after all these years.
-
All the same it might not be a bad idea to angle a little to the side of less mercury-ized fish.
Sure, who can we believe? I don't rightly know, but it doesn't hurt to play it safe when there are warning signs around. This study, that study -X
Aajonus Vonderplanitz says that eating fish raw solves this problem... but so far I think he's the only one with this idea?
Best wishes,
Avalon :D
-
There was a guy on another raw paleo forum who ate a ton of fish, he seemed to of taken some of Aajonus's advice and run with it without thinking for himself and ate fish to excess. He got into serious trouble I think he lost weight and his teeth started to fall out? he did take it to the extreme but provided some evidence that fish maybe not all what it's cracked up to be.
I would not over do it. I was eating a heap of fish at the start of going raw. I've gone totally off it and prefer the taste of red meat. It's what were designed to eat.
Someone should investigate if Aajonus's mercury theory has any science to back it up?
-
I would not over do it. I was eating a heap of fish at the start of going raw. I've gone totally off it and prefer the taste of red meat. It's what were designed to eat.
I am a total Sushi addict. Have eaten it for years, sometimes daily, though that was a couple of years ago when I had more $ and lived in N.Y. where you can eat it all hours of the day. Never felt bad or mercury-ish, but never tested for it :o
What meat are we designed to eat exactly and where is the manual? Lamb? Beef? Duck? Chicken? Deer? Buffalo? Oysters? Fish? Eel? Seal? etc. etc. I think of all those I listed and those left out, Beef is the most suspect if you're talking Cancer/Tumors and such. If we do eat meat, maybe we should stick to Buffalo or other meats. Just type 'Buffalo meat Cancer' into Google. Then Beef Cancer.
Sorry, don't get me started. ;)
-
ive only been eating fish and the like a couple of times a month so im not too worried, just like to hear different perspectives...
i recently read some stuff by aajonus and there is a a lot i agree with but as you said wodgina, one must think for themselves and i cant swallow everything(no pun intended). it sure gets tricky with so much conflicting information though!
-
There was a guy on another raw paleo forum who ate a ton of fish, he seemed to of taken some of Aajonus's advice and run with it without thinking for himself and ate fish to excess. He got into serious trouble I think he lost weight and his teeth started to fall out? he did take it to the extreme but provided some evidence that fish maybe not all what it's cracked up to be.
The guy you're referrring to had been eating lots of dodgy, very unhealthy foods such as raw dairy and lots of raw honey(far more than would have been obtainable in Palaeo times) - he also followed Aajonus' advice in his 1st book(not the revised edition?) and ate vast amounts of raw food every day. So, given that he was following strict Primal Diet guidelines, it's highly unsurprising that he developed health-problems, much like many other ex-Primal Dieters before him on veggie-juice, raw dairy etc. So, this is a FAR more likely explanation than the absurd mercury-issue. Besides, why is it that the Japanese, eaters of lots of raw and cooked fish in their diet, manage to so figure highly in terms of IQ scores, worldwide - if the mercury-claims were remotely true, one would have to expect neurological problems/IQ deficits in the Japanese population, yet there's no evidence for this whatsoever.
Whenever people bring up this tired, orthorexic topic, and I respond with the various damning scientific studies etc. which oppose this ludicrous theory, the usual response is that the effect of mercury is so small that it doesn't show up in short-term tests, but only in real-life after years of fish-consumption. Yet the Seychelles study ironically shows a very slight increase in neurological performance for those children eating lots of raw fish, and they eat 10 times as much seafood as Americans do.Actually, that slight boost would be in line with the old Hormesis theory.
I would not over do it. I was eating a heap of fish at the start of going raw. I've gone totally off it and prefer the taste of red meat. It's what were designed to eat.
Evidence from Palaeo times shows that while Neanderthals ate only meat for their animal-foods, our cavemen ancestors would eat a more varied diet of fish, fowl and meat(and berries etc., of course):-
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news202.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=early-modern-humans-feast
Someone should investigate if Aajonus's mercury theory has any science to back it up?
Well, if the raw-foodist theory re cooking rendering substances in food inorganic, is correct, than AV might have a point. Otherwise, probably not.
-
I've heard the body is really good at detoxing mercury.
If metals are so bad for us how come boilermakers, miners, metallurgists etc aren't dropping dead from heavy metals poisoning. If they are I haven't heard much about it.
deviating from this topic, tall people more likely to get cancer.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/tallness-a-cancer-risk/2007/11/01/1193619021038.html?s_cid=rss_news (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/tallness-a-cancer-risk/2007/11/01/1193619021038.html?s_cid=rss_news)
-
There are big differences in the kinds of fish. The Environmental Defense Fund publishes a Health Alert List, a list of fish species that contain too much toxic substances (heavy metals, and PCBs):
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694 (http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694)
http://www.edf.org/documents/7534_Health_Alerts_seafood.pdf (http://www.edf.org/documents/7534_Health_Alerts_seafood.pdf)
The (most) safe fish species are:
- Anchovies
- Clams
- Atlantic cod
- Dungeness crab
- U.S. king crab
- snow/tanner crab
- Trawl haddock
- Atlantic herring
- American/Maine lobster
- Atlantic mackerel
- Blue mussel
- Farmed oysters
- U.S. red porgy
- Canned salmon
- Sardines
- Farmed bay scallops
- Oregon pink shrimp
- Imported shrimp/prawns
- Squid
- Tilapia
What do you think about this? Most of the contaminated fish species are not even available or common here, so this really is not much an issue for me personally.
More generally, how paleolithic is fish really? To catch fish one requires nets and boats, which seems to me rather advanced technology for paleolithic humans. The fact that some people are allergic to fish seems to indicate that it is less essential that meat (the majority of food allergies are of neolithic foods)?
I do not intend to eat much fish anymore, mostly beef, because I think it is at least as healthy. In any case, certain fish is hugely expensive, for example fresh Alaska salmon would cost me about three times as much as beef.
-
Fish were definitely eaten in paleolithic times, but perhaps not by all humans. If you weren't near a lake or the ocean or a river you wouldn't have access to it. But then again, maybe in paleolithic times less settling occurred inland, or none. But to answer your question, I would take the stance that fish are LESS paleolithic than land animals, but still paleolithic. That is to say that I believe land animals were consumed both first by humans, and in larger amounts by most humans, than fish or other sea creatures.
-
There is evidence that paleos were catching large catfish with barbed sticks.
They have found sites where there were mountains of clam and oyster shells. Stuff you can get when the tide goes out or digging in the sand seems reasonable.
The fish with the most mercury are high on the food chain like swordfish and shark which would have been very hard to catch.
Pregnant women and young children should avoid mercury and fish from contaminated rivers!!!!
I think we would have eaten a lot of fish catching creatures like seals, penguins, and seabirds with their eggs.
-
The trouble with the above claims is that there is no evidence whatsoever that sharks or swordfish have any neurological damage from the natural levels of mercury they get from the ocean and their prey. I've already, in this article, shown 1 definitive study that debunks the notion that eating lots of seafood gives one neurological defects-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/uorm-ndr051503.php
I should also point out that the oceans also contain trace amounts of uranium just as they also contain trace amounts of mercury and every other element on earth. Yet none of the anti-mercury crowd seem bothered by that. Perhaps because claiming that all fish are therefore radioactively contaminated by uranium beyond help is even more unlikely than the dodgy notion that mercury-in-fish is unsafe.
-
I agree that the benefits of eating fish outweigh the risks. My point is that if a woman is pregnant she should avoid high risk species. It is only 9 months and there are a thousand other species of fish to eat. Why risk even a very remote possibility? The fetus can not choose.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/mercury.html
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg.html
-
If consuming mercury in seafood doesn't harm small children, such as shown in the above study I gave, then it is not going to harm infants in the womb. One should stay clear of any FDA/government pronouncements re diet as they not only don't have a clue(eg:- their recommending against eating raw meats etc.)
-
http://tinyurl.com/pkxgn4
Nicola
-
http://tinyurl.com/pkxgn4
Nicola
What a load of rubbishy propaganda. No wonder environmentalists are being ridiculed when they come up with all these ridiculous claims re mercury-toxicity in fish and the like.
-
I'm not scared of ocean fish. In fact, I search for ocean fish.
I just came from Catbalogan town in Samar Province, a fishing town and I had my first taste of raw sardines!
Yeah! Always been my dream.
What do fresh raw sardines taste like?
Delicious!
Only 20 pesos per bunch! See picture.
-
Hmm, other rawpaleodieters, myself included, find raw sardines disgusting in taste, at least in quantity. Raw mackerel/swordfish and the likeare not a problem for most, though.
-
Maybe the sardines I got in Catbalogan are different from the sardines you got?
Or maybe these sardines were caught in the morning and eaten at lunch fresh?
-
Maybe the sardines I got in Catbalogan are different from the sardines you got?
Or maybe these sardines were caught in the morning and eaten at lunch fresh?
Anything's possible. I'm sure that some of the fish I've eaten in the past had chemicals put on them beforehand, but that was from supermarkets, not a fishmonger's like with the sardines I got. And, of course, few people , certainly not me, have the opportunity to eat genuinely fresh fish as the fish we buy is nearly always 2 days old at least.
-
Must be the freshness issue.
My uncle who lived for a long time in Catbalogan says the boats used to haul in tons of sardines, everyone in town got sardines already and more sardines came, there were times they just had to bury the fish. They rot easily. They don't have canning or bottling plants there.
We never get raw sardines in Manila.
Below is a picture of the fish port of Catbalogan, the boats dock, unload their fish and sold direct at the steps, I bought my sardines there.
-
Man fresh sardines, I'm jealous you live by a seaport. What a luxury to be able to get your hands on a day catch. The best I can do is catch bluegill, SM bass, trout, and steelhead.
-
I think there may be a lot to be said about what is available in your area. Where I live there are lake fish but most of the lakes are to toxic to even take fish from them if you planned on cooking everything out of it.
I think that eating raw from your region may have more effects on you then eating what is cheapest or the easiest to get a hold of. I don't live near the ocean anymore but that is where I grew up and those foods make me feel better then 'plains foods' like buffalo, or even beef. Has anyone else noticed these?
-
I have, too. I find I need some raw seafood in the diet in order to feel at optimum.If I eat only raw seafood, then I start not feeling so well, though. I view a raw seafood-intake of 10-50% of the diet(more usually 20-25%) as being useful.