Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach => Topic started by: TylerDurden on February 02, 2009, 10:12:12 pm

Title: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on February 02, 2009, 10:12:12 pm
Here is the full online version of Stefansson's book "The Fat of the Land", posted as a sticky :-


http://www.zerocarbage.com/library/FOTL.pdf

(I should add a note of caution:- Stefansson is decidedly anti-raw and anti-organ-meats in his views so is extremely reluctant to admit that the Eskimoes ate plenty of raw meats and organ-meats - all other Arctic explorer-types state that the Eskimoes did indeed eat plenty of either. Stefansson's stance was that one could get by on a diet consisting only of fatty muscle-meat, so he is very biased re this. Ironically, in his Bellevue experiment, Stefansson and his colleague ate some raw organs(raw marrow), thus rather disproving his theory that they weren't needed).
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Satya on February 02, 2009, 10:50:13 pm
He gets into the Eskimos and raw food on pages 104-05 and elsewhere. 

"It was not true, as implied by the usual northern movie
and by some writers, that Eskimos preferred to eat their food
raw. A few things were preferred raw, among them seal liver;
but most were preferred boiled or roasted, and if they were
eaten raw it was usually for convenience. Still it is true that
the Eskimos ate wholly uncooked meats more frequently
 than we do."


Oh, and the cooking of meat in liquid may have been to thaw the meat more than anything. 
Also, fire for warmth was a necessity.  Perhaps the boiling/braising of meat was a
result of always having a fire.  You know, may as well use it for more
than warming bodies.  Just a thought.  It is interesting that they used
the least harmful cooking method when they did cook.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on February 02, 2009, 11:27:09 pm
The trouble is that the Eskimoes ate rather more than just seal liver raw, such as raw whalemeat etc. And the fish high-meat was a preferred food among the Eskimoes, as well.

I suspect that since Stefansson could only find 1 group(eskimoes) eating zero-carb and partially raw at that, he didn't want to focus on the raw aspect as he knew it would put off many westerners.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 03, 2009, 08:11:09 pm
How many different eskimo tribes did Steffanson live with?
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on February 04, 2009, 07:41:56 am
How many different eskimo tribes did Steffanson live with?

I have no idea. I suspect that it couldn't have been more than 2 or 3.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Raw Kyle on February 05, 2009, 06:17:49 am
Can anyone just go and live with some eskimos? I'd consider doing it if I could be guaranteed a book deal to write about my experiences afterwords.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: William on February 06, 2009, 09:39:12 am
Can anyone just go and live with some eskimos? I'd consider doing it if I could be guaranteed a book deal to write about my experiences afterwords.

Yes, but you would not like it. They are going through culture shock,  with high suicide rate, wife/child abuse, sickness from SAD diet etc.
Some outsiders in every Inuit community/settlement where they were put by gov't decree, such as missionaries, teachers, police, town administrators and other parasites.

Stefansson saw the beginning of this, did not know what he was seeing when he saw them cook in pots.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Cosmo on June 24, 2009, 05:07:53 am
Vilhjalmur Stefansson died at the age of 81 from a stroke. Actually he had 3 strokes,  he suffered a minor stroke when he was 71, then another one at the age of 77, the third one finished him.
it just shows that eating cooked meat and fat is not the same as eating them raw. He could have lived much longer if he avoided cooked meat and included raw organs like liver. But still 81 is not too bad I suppose.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: goodsamaritan on June 24, 2009, 10:33:40 am
81 would be a tragedy for myself.
My father side grandparents and great grandparents had lived 100+
My mother side grandparents 85+
And they are no health buffs.

Now that I've learned about health, I expect to live 100+
Although the wild card is the abuse I went through with an unhealthy life 35+ years since I was born.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Hannibal on June 24, 2009, 12:15:38 pm
Vilhjalmur Stefansson died at the age of 81 from a stroke. Actually he had 3 strokes,  he suffered a minor stroke when he was 71, then another one at the age of 77, the third one finished him.
But when he was older and has married he changed his diet towards SAD
Besides there are quite many things that determine our general health - diet isn't the only one
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Cosmo on June 24, 2009, 02:07:58 pm
But when he was older and has married he changed his diet towards SAD
Besides there are quite many things that determine our general health - diet isn't the only one

It's hard to believe that he abandoned his belief in zero-carb diet, especially after he wrote a book about it and tried to convert others.
Hannibal, where did you find evedince that Stefansson changed his diet to SAD???

Diet is not the only factor that help live longer but it's the main one, the other big factor is - not overeating.
Eat less - live longer! 2 meals a day should be enough.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Cosmo on June 24, 2009, 02:17:00 pm
81 would be a tragedy for myself.

Now that I've learned about health, I expect to live 100+
Although the wild card is the abuse I went through with an unhealthy life 35+ years since I was born.
:D :D :D I'd be happy to live till 81. I doesn't matter how long you live but HOW you live.
We must stay on this forum and follow each other's progress - let's see who will die first ;D
And as bout your unhealthy years, I'm sure you new diet will reverse all the negative effects of the old habits. Luckily for us our human body is designed for constant regeneration!
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Hannibal on June 24, 2009, 04:50:31 pm
It's hard to believe that he abandoned his belief in zero-carb diet, especially after he wrote a book about it and tried to convert others.
Hannibal, where did you find evedince that Stefansson changed his diet to SAD???
I found it here - http://rawpaleodiet.vpinf.com/rvaf-overview.html (you have to scroll down to the passage about Stefansson)
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 24, 2009, 05:08:21 pm
One has to wonder if Stefansson's diet couldn't have been that healthy if he felt it was OK to switch over to a refined diet.

Re early health-problems:- While one can recover from serious past illness, there's no guarantee whatsoever that all previous harm can be undone. For example, I'm pretty sure that if I'd never had all those health-problems as a child I would have ended up being several inches taller in adulthood(whereas I'm now only 6ft),  but there are many other issues - after all, many things happen during developnment top adulthood so it is perfectly possible that my heart or some other organ, while capable of mostly being repaired, has endured some permanent damage while eating SMD for my first 3 decades. So my health is likely not remotely as good as someone of equal age raised on this rpd diet for the first 36 years of his life, even if I feel pretty good now.

Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Cosmo on June 25, 2009, 02:09:17 am
I found it here - http://rawpaleodiet.vpinf.com/rvaf-overview.html (you have to scroll down to the passage about Stefansson)


Thanks, Hannibal!
It just shows that marriage shortens your life span :-))))))))))
"Steffanson ate raw foods for much of his adult life, including plentiful raw animal food, changing to a more refined and processed diet only after he married later in life (he later hit health problems due to the switch."
He was married at the age of 61 and had his first stroke at the age of 71.
Hey guys, if you are married, get a divorce as soon as possible! :-))))))))))))))))))))

By the way, "Humans live on average 39.5 years in Swaziland[2] and on average 81 years in Japan (2008 est.). The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years (see Jeanne Calment)" .
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Hannibal on June 25, 2009, 11:56:35 am
It just shows that marriage shortens your life span :-))))))))))
But it could be very true, if the diet and lifestyle re health of your wife is unhealthy
You could end up like her, esp. when You you're deeply in love with her.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Cosmo on June 25, 2009, 02:16:33 pm
Hannibal, you are absolutely right, For example, I became single in 2007 and finally was able to experiment with different diets. If I wasn't single I would have never tried raw diet or raw paelo diet. Living on my own helped me to stick to raw food as there wasn't anyone to tempt me with cooked food, cakes or chocolates ;-))))))))))))
Being single turned out to be the thing ever for me as it helped to become super-healthy and super-strong.


Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 25, 2009, 04:50:30 pm
By the way, the stefansson quote from vinny's page above is a load of ****. In fact Stefansson always advocated and ate, 99% of the time,  a cooked-meat diet and frowned on organs and raw(though he did eat some small amounts of raw marrow during his bellevue experiment).
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Cosmo on June 26, 2009, 11:17:57 pm
By the way, the stefansson quote from vinny's page above is a load of ****. In fact Stefansson always advocated and ate, 99% of the time,  a cooked-meat diet and frowned on organs and raw(though he did eat some small amounts of raw marrow during his bellevue experiment).

That was Stefansson's biggest mistake! His body was overloaded with saturated fat and cholestorol (from cooked meat and fat). That explains why he suffered 3 strokes and died quite early.
Thanks, Tyler, for your input on the matter.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: van on June 27, 2009, 01:47:54 am
excess carbs also cause the same, if not more.   Heart disease was hardly a factor 80 years ago. 
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: aariel on October 01, 2009, 12:37:08 pm
As I recall from my reading of TFOTL, Stefansson's younger wife tempted him with sweets and that was the "cause" of his early strokes.
Also, he did eat raw when he lived with the Eskimos, but when he was back in the states, he ate cooked food. I'm re-reading the book now so I'll keep this thread in mind as I go.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: tammy123 on May 22, 2010, 08:20:24 pm
I have not heard about this book before but reading all the posts here making me anxious for reading this book and I will soon download this book, so that I can able to get some better updates.

Thanks
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on May 24, 2010, 05:36:05 am
Actually there is no correlation between saturated fat and cholesterol to heart disease. The lipid hypothesis was just a made up hypothesis by a biochemist named Ancel Keys in 1953. He traveled the world to 22 countries studying whether there was a correlation between high fat/cholesterol consumption and heart disease. However in 1962 (I think) he had a 7 country study posted in Times magazine. Whats wrong with that? He had reliable data from 22 countries but only posted the 7 that correlated with his hypothesis. Now pharmaceutical companies can sell statin drugs to the mass public without any science to back it up and get away with it. I dont care whether saturated fat is cooked or raw, it does not contribute to heart disease and never did. Dietary cholesterol also has nothing to do with your body's cholesterol levels. I do agree that raw fats are 10 times superior to cooked fats, but nevertheless cooked fats still don't contribute to heart disease. Ask yourselves, if it was formulated in 1953, why is it still a hypothesis? because it cannot be proven, it is wrong.

A good person who really knows the truth is Brian Penski- world renowned physiologist who performs only experiments, not studies that can be easily manipulated by statistics (much like Ancel Keys). Penski clearly states that 60% of plaque is oxidized omega 6 fatty acids from olive, canola, and other vegetable oils. He says that the key to health is a low carbohydrate diet utilizing plenty saturated fat and only "parent omega 3/6's" or unadulterated omega 3/6's like cold pressed organic oils, then your body knows what to do with them. Check out Brian Penski on oneradio.com

Check out this video for the cholesterol myth      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE

Also, where did you hear that eating less was healthy? is there any validity to that? Personally I agree with you on not buying into all the "you need 6 meals a day for optimal health" saying. I think we humans were meant to only eat once or twice a day, but whats wrong with eating 4000 calories a day provided that it is raw?
 
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on May 24, 2010, 05:42:14 pm
There is ample scientific evidence to show that eating less(intermittent fasting not caloric restriction as such) helps re improved health etc.:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting

As for the above claims re cooked saturated fats being supposedly healthy, they are dead wrong. For one thing, endless studies have shown that cooked animal foods(especially those with high in saturated fats) produce much higher amounts of heat-created toxins than cooked plant foods. The only thing those studies got wrong was in focusing on saturated fats when it's clear that it's the heated glycotoxins etc. in those saturated-fat-heavy foods which is the real problem:-

"The formation of exogenous (outside the body) advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) and oxidation products generated during cooking may be a confounding factor that some studies may not have controlled for. It has been suggested that, "given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-(saturated)fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGEs"
 taken from:-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: RawZi on May 24, 2010, 10:34:23 pm
I have not heard about this book before but reading all the posts here making me anxious for reading this book and I will soon download this book, so that I can able to get some better updates.

    http://www.rawfoodlifetoday.com/ (http://www.rawfoodlifetoday.com/)

    Is this book in your signature vegan?
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on May 25, 2010, 12:04:53 am
I didnt say that cooked saturated fats were healthy, I simply stated that they dont correlate to heart disease. I'll tell ya what, I'd take cooked saturated fats over cooked grains and carbohydrates any day. The real correlation is within the inflammation, and yes I'd have to agree AGE's play a big factor. Im just saying that the US lives in a fat phobic society. What people have to realize is carbohydrates are 100 times worse than fats. Even Weston Price said that while sugar consumption in US increased fat consumption decreased, and heart disease is skyrocketing, so whats the real correlation? A 1902 study posted by the New York Times stated that since 1870 sugar consumption increased 8 times. Since 1902, it increased 7 times. So we're looking at a society that eats roughly 15 times the sugar today than it did in 1870, WOW  :o. However during this sugar increase, fat esp sat fat has decreased.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on May 25, 2010, 04:47:22 am
Actually, that's quite wrong. The amount of fat-intake each year has not really decreased - here is more accurate info re this:-

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/NutritionInsights/insight5.pdf

 And carbs are fine and healthy (if raw), it's just the refined carbs which are the problem as well as the cooked animal fats. Also, you have to bear in mind that whereas people used to just lightly cook their meats, they now use frying/microwaving and other harsher cooking methods thus producing much higher levels of heat-created toxins than in previous eras, so that cooked animal fat is just as unhealthy as refined sugar nowadays. And toxic AGEs from cooked animal foods have been directly linked to atherosclerosis and heart-disease.



 In short, the point is that any form of cooking/processing other than fermenting is extremely unhealthy for humans and should be avoided like the plague.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 25, 2010, 09:01:08 am
By the way, the stefansson quote from vinny's page above is a load of ****. In fact Stefansson always advocated and ate, 99% of the time,  a cooked-meat diet and frowned on organs and raw(though he did eat some small amounts of raw marrow during his bellevue experiment).
McClellan and Du Bois claimed that Stefansson and Andersen apparently also ate organs and eggs during the Bellevue experiment:

"Nature of Diet: The meat used included beef, lamb, veal, pork, and chicken. The parts used were muscle, liver, kidney, brain, bone marrow, bacon, and fat. While on lecture trips V.S. occasionally ate eggs and a little butter when meat was not readily obtainable. The carbohydrate content of the diet was very small, consisting solely of the glycogcn in the meat. ... A sample menu for the day, given in raw weights follows.

Breakfast: lean beef, 190 gm.; fat, 100 gm.
Dinner: liver, 200 gm.; fat, 75 gm.
Supper: lean beef, 200 gm.; marrow, 70 gm."

[From the Stefansson all-meat Bellevue Hospital study, "PROLONGED MEAT DIETS WITH A STUDY OF KIDNEY FUNCTION AND KETOSIS.*" BY WALTER S. MCCLELLAN AND EUGENE F. Du BOIS. (From the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology in Association with the Second Medical (Cornell) Division of Bellevue Hospital, New York.) (Received for publication, February 13, 1930.) Downloaded from The Journal of Biological Chemistry Website, www.jbc.org, on July 6, 2008, http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf+html]

However, Stefansson in his writings only admitted that Andersen ate organs, AFAIK, so it's not totally clear. Still, you would think that the report would have mentioned it if Stefansson had completely abstained from organs. Other people have also claimed that Stefansson ate organs during the experiment but didn't provide additional original sources.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on May 25, 2010, 10:42:48 am
The point I am trying to make is that saturated fat gets the blame and that is totally wrong, any cooked fat produces toxins. I think oxidized/ cooked omega 6's and vegetable oils are way worse. Another thing is that it is very reasonable to believe that we humans are carnivores in nature so we were meant to eat plenty of fat, just not cooked. Even Aajonus, as well as many others who lived off the land for periods of time said that it is BS to believe that humans always had carbs available esp in the winter. He stated that when he lived outside for 3 years, fruit was barely ever ripe or around at all, and never available in the winter, so he primarily ate animals. I dont know much about cooked fat toxins yet but I believe your assertions. I have always just thought that to say that fat is the enemy is total BS, cooked carbs are way worse. Of course Im not talking about raw food here. Check out Brian Penski's website, I swear by the guy.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on May 25, 2010, 04:59:07 pm
The problem with the above is that in warmer tropical climes, carbs are indeed easily available all the year round. It's only in Arctic areas where carbs are rare - even then, 100% ZC is not a characteristic of Arctic-dwelling tribes as the Inuit etc. also consume berries which they freeze for winter-consumption, along with seaweed, plant-matter in stomach-contents, ground nuts etc. They are commonly  96-99% animal food-oriented.

The cooked-fat proponents, whether in the form of Anthony Colpo or whatever, variously recommend extremely unhealthy diets involving pasteurised dairy, grainfed meats(high omega-6: omega 3 ratios) etc. etc. The only thing they have going for them is that, unlike with most junk-foods on SAD diets, the foods they generally recommend contain far fewer chemicals/preservatives and less processing by comparison - other than that, their diets are worthless.

As for the issues of vegetable-oils used for cooking, they form only a tiny amount by comparison to the huge amounts of cooked saturated fats in the actual meats being cooked, so they cannot be primarily blamed  for the massive ill-health caused by cooked animal fats.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on May 26, 2010, 09:54:01 am
What about oxidized oils though? And what about how plaque tends to have nearly 60% of it omega 6 oils from adulterated vegetable oils. What about inflammation and glycations on arterial walls from excess sugar consumption, and other inflammation, smoking, pollution, exogenous hormones, estrogens, pesticides. IDK I just get so annoyed at the media's assertions and in the US you always have to realize that whatever the media says, the opposite is usually true. They think that the etiology of heart disease and cancer is something as silly and simple as fat. People started listening to the pyramid, and you saw where that got us. Very little of the common dietary knowledge is based on science, mostly just assumptions. Thats why I went raw in the first place. I will have to agree with you on the fat being bad cooked but I will stand with my point; getting the majority of ones calories from carbs is a big mistake. The US pyramid (the feedlot pyramid) recommends over 60% of calories from carbs, primarily from bread. That is why the country is obese, that is why the biggest epidemic today is diabetes. Diabetes has a strong correlation with obesity, this is all interconnected. The metabolic syndrome correlates strongly with high carb diets not fat. We weren't meant to function on carbs. We only need like 5% of our calories from them. Our bodies only have one teaspoon of sugar in them at any given time. So guess what happens when we eat 1 slice of bread (which is equivalent to 3 teaspoons of sugar)? Blood sugar spike, insulin comes in, drives sugar into cells, stores fat. No fat burning is possible during this time. People on high carb diets rarely burn fat, they burn carbs. Thats why keto diets work, deplete all glycogen so your body has no choice but to burn fat. Along with all that stuff, opposite to the commonly held belief, our brains run 2/3 on fat in the form of ketone bodies, and only 1/3 on glucose, so fat is our preferred fuel source, it just shouldnt be cooked fat. But if I was a typical American with no knowledge of raw paleo or anything raw, I'd take cooked fat over cooked carbs any day. I agree with all your points, Im basically talking on an ignorant American perspective. You typically cant start them off with a raw diet so you have to ease into the concepts, like less carbs esp grains, more organic fruits and veggies, less dairy, grass fed meat, etc... then once people get settled in that lifestyle you can introduce them to raw because they are way more open now than they would have been before. So if I were to help someone, Id tell them to go on cooked paleo first because I know they wouldnt take me seriously with raw. Then after like 6 months on that diet, and after they saw some benefits of it (because even cooked paleo improves people tremendously) Id tell them about raw.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 02, 2010, 05:51:23 pm
Well, actually a lot of people such as myself don't thrive on cooked-palaeo and do better on raw vegan in the short-term than on cooked-palaeo. And there are some perfectly healthy Instinctos thriving on raw high-carb diets. The trouble with cooked-palaeo is that it causes the same glycation-related issues as cooked/refined carbs, and cooked animal food has a higher load of heat-created toxins than cooked carbs even. The only real benefit re cooked-palaeo is that dairy and grains are avoided, that's about it.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: alphagruis on June 03, 2010, 05:47:57 pm
The US pyramid (the feedlot pyramid) recommends over 60% of calories from carbs, primarily from bread. That is why the country is obese, that is why the biggest epidemic today is diabetes. Diabetes has a strong correlation with obesity, this is all interconnected. The metabolic syndrome correlates strongly with high carb diets not fat. We weren't meant to function on carbs. We only need like 5% of our calories from them. Our bodies only have one teaspoon of sugar in them at any given time. So guess what happens when we eat 1 slice of bread (which is equivalent to 3 teaspoons of sugar)? Blood sugar spike, insulin comes in, drives sugar into cells, stores fat. No fat burning is possible during this time. People on high carb diets rarely burn fat, they burn carbs.

Unfortunately your stance is usual ZC ideology, not science.

If things where that simple how do you explain that very few people if any were ever obese or diabetic in 19th century rural France or Germany? As far as we know as much "carbs" and even bread were eaten by that time. The main difference is in respective fractions of processed versus unprocessed foods overall and also non dietary factors such as physical activity but not in "carbs".

Again let me emphasize. It is largely vain, often misleading and basically not pertinent from a modern 21th century scientific point of view to just reason in reductionist terms of "carbs" or any single molecular component of food such as vitamins, glucose, specific amino acids or fatty acids, etc. What's more appropriate is rather to find out which whole natural unprocessed foods, such as meats, fruits, fishs, veggies, legumes, grains etc are appropriate in human diet and what healthy ecosystems can produce them.

This is because the properties of any food in terms of health or illness promoting are emergent by nature and therefore cannot seriously be reduced to any of its molecular components.

Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 04, 2010, 09:04:20 am
I dont know how it is over in france, but here in the us, sugar consumption alone increased 15 times since 1870. According to an article in 1900 published by Times magazine, sugar consumption increased 8 times since 1870, look it up. That's a whopping 8 times in 30 years. There are plenty of facts out there that downright prove that carb consumption increased tremendously and fat consumption decreased in the US. As for my knowledge not being based on science, I dont get what your trying to say but I highly doubt the USDA food pyramid is based on science, nor any other commonly believed US nutritional knowledge. Yes, what you say about processed and cooked food is correct, and No Im dont support the zero carb approach, I just believe that we can function just fine with much less carbs, but that doesnt mean carbs are bad. Everyone is different and just because I function better without many carbs doesnt mean someone else will. Like I've said before, look up Dr. Brian Peskin, he is a world renowned physiologist who actually knows the facts, and although I dont base my knowledge solely off of one mans knowledge, out of all the people out there, hes got most of the dots connected together. And ohhhh noooo l) hes not raw paleo. So the hell what, the world doesnt change trying to promote raw. Baby steps is what needs to be made.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 04, 2010, 09:08:25 am
I highly agree with your post after reading it again. I just find it funny to say that people werent obese back then even though they ate a lot of carbs. What about them not being obese back then even though they ate a lot of cooked meat?
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: alpha78 on June 04, 2010, 04:09:22 pm
First im half faroese and i will just say that food in arctic area faroe island -iceland- and greenland that food has been coocked for a very long time ever since the vikings and pirates came. In faroe island before pirates came all was blond but the offspring from faroe island gaved them dark hair so in my bloodline there is pirate blood :-).
The men from faroe island was very strong men but they didnt get much older than 55_60
They had light that burned on fish or whale fat/oil for cooking and heat offcourse they eated alot raw but it was also a major part dried meat and fish and even on faroe island there are some wild berrys and they have been sailors and traders for long long time

Alpha
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: alphagruis on June 04, 2010, 04:13:33 pm
I highly agree with your post after reading it again. I just find it funny to say that people werent obese back then even though they ate a lot of carbs. What about them not being obese back then even though they ate a lot of cooked meat?

Well, is it really true that they ate a lot of cooked meat? Or more precisely more cooked meat than in SAD?

Apparently only a minority of wealthy people certainly ate a lot of cooked meats and fishs but they were precisely very prone to sicknesses of affluence such as obesity, gout etc. Yet I agree with you that these people also were those who could afford to buy some refined suger and routinely eat this toxic stuff 150 or 200 years ago.  

I'm really convinced that modern processing and agro-production techniques are the main culprits rather than the change in carbs/proteins/fats ratios. By processing I not only mean the final practice of more or less systematic cooking of food, but also preservation techniques, irradiation, pasteurization etc.

Overall a majority of the 19th century population here in France ate a much higher proportion of strictly raw unprocessed foods such as fruits, veggies, meats (ham, saussages...), fishs and shellfishs, eggs, dairy, honey etc...than the relevant 21th century population. Today it becomes more and more difficult to even find strictly raw food in supermarkets. Even those foods that were traditionally eaten plain raw, such as butter, mayonnaise (egg yolks, mustard and virgin olive oil), aioli (egg yolks, garlic, virgin olive oil), ham, saussages etc are now systematically pasteurized and prepared with junk additives and heat extracted seed oils.    
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 04, 2010, 04:38:00 pm
There are plenty of facts out there that downright prove that carb consumption increased tremendously and fat consumption decreased in the US.
 I just recently provided a link debunking the absurd notion that fat-intake has decreased in modern times. In fact fat-intake has increased.

As for the claims re people in the past not being obese despite eating lots of cooked meats, that was primarily because they indulged in much higher levels of exercise than we do today - plus, like Alphagruis said, our ancestors generally ate far higher levels of raw, unprocessed foods than SAD-eaters do today. In other words, the raw aspect is  more important than any particular food-category(even with non-palaeo foods, people generally do better on raw dairy than pasteurised dairy etc..
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 05, 2010, 01:25:59 am
Where are the facts stating that fat intake increased? Everyone always says it has but no one knows any sources. Even if it did increase, carb increased way more. People like to shout out things like "fat intake increased dramatically" therefore it must be the cause of health problems. However once again anything can be manipulated by statistics to prove a point. I think all macros increased because population increased, so yeah fat did increase, however where the ration of Carb/ fat back then could have been 50/50, its more like 70/20 now esp since the USDA food pyramid got involved. They put the pyramid up and people listen. So while fat increased may have increased with an increasing population, carb intake increased astronomically in comparison. ANd no Im not against carbs or anything, but 90% of carbs in the supermarket is just plain sugar in ones body. So the carbs today are way worse. As for exercise, I know we live a more sedentary lifestyle now, but thats no excuse. Ever heard of BMR? Our bodies burn the majority of calories doing basic daily functions, including sleeping. In other words, Exercise plays a very small role in it unless your like michael phelps or something. But how unnatural is it to exercise as much as him? Extreme athletes frequently get sick all the time because exercise in excess is an immune suppressant. Plus, I know everyone is different with metabolism and such, however for me a 175lb male doing basic daily activities I burn 1900 calories without any exercise at all. If I run for half hour I burn around 200 calories, and I think strength training burns a good amount also, however 200- 500kcal in 1 workout is nothing compared to BMR. Some people can burn 1000 cal sleeping. So I agree that there are many health benefits to exercise such as circulation, muscle mass, strength, and respiratory, but if one thinks that we are unhealthy today more because of less exercise than worse diet he/she is very mistaken. Also, I agree with the above post a lot about the quality of the food being more important than macros. And yeah, I hate agricultural practices of today, they make me sick and it pisses me off that I cant acquire as much quality food anymore. :'(
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: alpha78 on June 05, 2010, 02:20:36 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smkPdW0lY3E
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 05, 2010, 06:04:58 pm
Where are the facts stating that fat intake increased?


I already provided a link demonstrating that fat-intake has increased, not decreased. here it is again:-


http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/NutritionInsights/insight5.pdf  

More to the point as Alphagruis said, people in the past(couple of centuries ago) often had very high carb-intakes but didn't have obesity etc.That's because the carbs they ate were unrefined, largely.

As for the other claims:- first of all, ALL foods have now become more highly processed , whether in the form of carbs or fats, it's erroneous, therefore, to single out carbs as the main culprit. Raw meats/fats have been variously hydrogenated(eg:- lard) or have had multiple preservatives/chemicals added to them so that they don't truly resemble the original raw food in any meaningful sense.

As far as exercise is concerned, I've already shown in other threads how the Athenians and the Cro_Magnon in the Palaeolithic era practised far higher levels of physical activity than any of us do nowadays. Indeed, in terms of functional strength, any average palaeo man could whip the butts of any modern human today with incredible ease. With all that high level of activity, obesity would not be possible.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 05, 2010, 09:05:30 pm
Yeah I know, all that shit really sucks. Please recognize that I dont want to argue with anyone on this forum, I just like to understand others opinions and formulate my own. Anyway, when I was cooked paleo, I was living at my dorm in college eating out of a cafeteria because I had no other choice. It always bugged me to know that the meat they served definitely was cooked in death producing oxidized vegetable oils and most likely had gluten in it. I am celiac and corn intolerant so I noticed when I ate the food there I was always in the bathroom. I wouldnt be surprised if the meat was made with soy either. Either way, Ive been out of the caf for months living back at home and although my mom is pissed because of the raw paleo diet, I have managed to perfect digestion to a tee. I eat and then have a BM an hour later and never need toilet paper. I guess that proves the diet is perfect. The whole thing with exercise I was trying to say was that yes they were more active back then but that wasnt the reason. I look at examples of lions and other predators, they dont exercise at all, just hunt their food. Bears hibernate all winter and are ready to go in the spring. I know we cant compare to animals but it makes a lot of sense that we humans dont need to go out of our way to exercise so much. I mean think of the ice age. Thats a prime example. Cavemen were living in sub freezing temperatures, and we all know the colder the climate the more heat your body produces the more calories you burn. People have been known to burn 500 calories an hour outside in cold temperatures which is about the same as an hour jog. Did these caveman want to do any more exercise? Hell no, the only exercise they did was hunt mammoths, oh what a beautiful era to live in. :P So if the diet is perfect, exercise seems only secondary.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 05, 2010, 09:20:41 pm
From the USDA studies:

Conclusion
Total fat consumption expressed as a percent of caloric intake has steadily decreased since 1965. However, in the past 5 years, the decrease in percent of calories from fat is a result of increased total caloric intake and not necessarily due to decreased fat consumption. The daily fat intake in grams has, in fact, increased in many cases, reversing the trend of Americans consuming less fat in their diet as was reported earlier (3).

I hope you do realize those studies were made by the USDA, the same people who told you cholesterol was bad and raw milk and meat kill.
Nevertheless, I never really meant fat intake actually decreased, but just like the conclusion states, as calories increased, the ratio of fat decreased which obviously means that in a time of rampant heart disease and obesity there is very little correlation between fat and heart disease and obesity. I am not calling any macro the culprit, Im just defending fat.

Check out this video:      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXCvduiAbs
And this link:                 http://finallyhealing.com/a-brief-history-of-sugar/

Read that last link carefully, sugar is pretty much the culprit for everything, even slaves.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: KD on June 05, 2010, 10:37:58 pm
Ive been out of the caf for months living back at home and although my mom is pissed because of the raw paleo diet, I have managed to perfect digestion to a tee. I eat and then have a BM an hour later and never need toilet paper. I guess that proves the diet is perfect.

Stefansson incarnate.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 06, 2010, 01:09:28 am
Like I said before, the fact that the cooked-fat component has decreased as a proportion of the diet does not make it any less a factor in heart-disease as the actual intake of cooked fat has increased. It is simply a question of processing. In other words, someone eating mostly unrefined raw carbs and only a little cooked/processed fat would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly cooked/processed fat and only a few raw carbs.

As for the FDA, I don't view conspiracy theories re the FDA as remotely credible. And some notions the FDA has had have been spot on:- for example, raw milk is a very easy way to get infected as milk from a diseased animal more easily transmits /pathogens/diseases to others than the raw meat itself. And the reason why there are so many studies damning the consumption of cooked animal fats is because of the serious harm caused by such foods as a result of the harm done to those foods via cooking, and, in some cases, other forms of processing.Scientists may not always get 1 study right, but when multiple studies all confirm the same sort of results, then chances are highly unlikely that there was a mistake.

As for the issue of exercise, Cordain has already shown without a doubt that Palaeo peoples experienced far higher levels of exercise than modern man. The bones/skulls of palaeo men have been shown by scientists to be  much stronger, denser than in modern humans , which is a sign of increased physical activity on a daily basis:-

http://chetday.com/cordaininterview.htm

Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 06, 2010, 02:58:18 am
I agree with processed cooked fats being bad, Ive stated before that Brian Peskin found that plaque is 60% oxidized omega 6 oils probably from the immense consumption of vegetable oils, so saturated fat is barely an issue. And to say that strong facial structure bones was a result of exercise is just by assumption, it could be very probable that the diets they ate back then were the reason for these strong features, however that is an assumption as well. There is no way of proving what exactly caused their strong features. And I am not talking about conspiracy theories really. Im talking about the huge amount of fallacy and assumptions in the scientific and medical community when it comes to studies. Sometimes studies are meaningless esp when they can be manipulated by statistics. Just look at Ancel Keys, that was a false study done in 1953 and people still believe the lipid hypothesis. I dont care about studies unless they are experiments, and there is a huge difference. Ancel studied other countries to see which diets were healthier than the SAD diet but what the hell does that tell us? Not a damn thing, because unless you perform an experiment where one group consumes a certain food and another is a control, studies dont mean a damn thing. Another thing with studies is you always hear "breaking news new study shows." However no one ever asks the question, what happened to the first study? Or, why didnt the guy get it right the first time? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that studies dont mean jack squat unless there is solid proof or evidence and in the diet community there rarely ever is. Only experiments matter, not studies.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 06, 2010, 05:15:50 am
Studies routinely involve experiments and they do commonly use controls. As regards the issue of diets and exercise, the very fact that cooked-palaeodieters in modern times do not remotely have anywhere near the superior physical capabilities and skeletal structure that ancient Cro-Magnon humans had in the palaeolithic era eating the same sort of diet, means that it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a cooked, palaeolithic diet alone could have led to such superior physical bodies. Besides, the superior bone-density has been proven as being linked to increased physical performance as even modern athletes have better bones than sedentary types.

As for the conspiracy theories claims, it's natural that the pro-cooked saturated fat crowd are forced to use such lame conspiracy theories as they have very little data to back their claims. The way science works, incidentally, is not that every study has to be 100% right(to err is human after all) but that the majority of the studies will, over time, back the conclusion that is indeed scientifically correct, through trial and error. If a particular scientific conclusion(eg:- that cooked saturated fat is healthy) is constantly being debunked by study after study, experiment after experiment, then it is vanishingly unlikely that it is the correct one. More to the point, RVAFers have generally had very poor health as a result of following cooked-saturated-fat-rich diets such as Atkins Diet etc.

As for Brian Peskin, he has been condemned on his own wikipedia page as a fraud:- "Peskin has been accused of making false claims about his qualifications and the effectiveness of some of his products, and is the subject of a permanent injunction from the State of Texas preventing him from making such claims and ordering him to cease the sales of the products" taken from:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Peskin

Not only is he neither raw nor palaeo, but he's a crook as well:-

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/Peskin/peskin.html

 It's a common trick for wannabe gurus to promote dodgy processed supplements as the profit-margin is much larger than with other diet-related products like books.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 06, 2010, 05:39:25 am
When did I say their superior physical nature was due to cooked paleo? I think raw produces strong physical structure and could be the very reason why cavemen had strong physiques. Nevertheless, there really is no way of proving if they ate raw or not, nor when fire was first introduced. Im not arguing that raw is not good, I love raw and see the benefits of it through observation, experimentation, and first hand. However whether we like it or not, until some new technology comes out that proves whether the meat they ate was not cooked the argument cannot be made. Once again I hear another person talking down on someone who isnt raw. Honestly who the hell cares? Brian Peskin, Mercola, Eades, or Cordain etc... find the truth and give it to the people, thats all I ask for, the truth. And the more acceptable and mainstream influential people like Ive stated become, the more acceptable RPD will be. Im tired of people on this forum talking shit on Cordain for being a "sellout" because hes not raw. The guy made cooked paleo mainstream and many people wouldnt even consider RPD unless cooked paleo was popular. Also, people talk shit on vegans too, however at least veganism intoduces people to raw food. I know if someone told me about eating raw meat before I knew about paleo I would have been like "are you out of your F#@king mind? Cooked paleo introduced me to raw. Peskin is an awesome guy who only performs experiments, not studies. He works with many other scientists to produce the most meticulous experiments possible so that they can say case closed. One can call the guy an idiot all one wants but he's an MIT grad for engineering & when his wife got sick he went to med school and is now a world renowned physiologist who doesnt buy into all the media's bullshit. Anyone who speaks against all the obvious nutritional wrongs out there is good in my book. :D
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 06, 2010, 05:46:45 am
Wow I read that stuff you found about him and thats bullshit. I thought the guy was good. He was on onetalkradio talking about all the stuff that makes sense, like how fish oil is bullshit, lipid hypothesis was made up, however I didnt agree how he promoted flax oil. Flax are 3x more estrogen than soy WTF . IDK how I feel about him now.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 06, 2010, 05:54:15 am
Err, as shown above Brian Peskin was condemned in open court for lying about his credentials, with bogus claims of being a doctor, having a PHD etc.So any claims he may make re further credentials are not to be remotely trusted.

As for Cordain, I actually view him quite highly, because unlike Peskin, Colpo, Gary Taubes etc. , he depends on a lot of genuine palaeolithic-era scientific evidence to support his claims, and he isn't even all that anti-raw as, unlike many other similiar paleo gurus, he acknowledges openly that cooked diets produce AGEs and other heat-created toxins which are extremely harmful to human health.

As for the connection between diet and exercise, the point was that such high levels of bone-density etc. among palaeo humans can only be explained if they had extremely high physical activity every day. In other words, a rawpalaeo person on a great diet but not doing much exercise could not compete against a rawpalaeo in the palaeo era((or, IMO, a cooked-palaeodieter in the palaeo era) given the extreme physical activity of the latter two types.

As for the issue of when cooking was invented, I'm afraid you're wrong there. The overwhelming evidence is in favour of the notion that cooking was only introduced in the last 10% of the palaeolithic era, c.250,000 years ago, given evidence of cooking hearths. Sure, Wrangham and a few kooks have suggested much earlier dates for cooking, but their views are ignored by the rest of the scientific community as they have no genuine evidence to support their belief:-


http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/non-wrangham-theories-of-cooking-debunked/

http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 06, 2010, 08:59:21 am
Thats interesting, I never knew that they could prove the era when cooking was introduced. When I talk about the diet however, I tell people to look at the tribes who eat raw today as a prime example of radiant health. In other words I tell people that evidence of the past can get confusing and there's evidence today staring right at us we just have to look for it. And I never meant exercise was not beneficial as stated previously. I meant that when in terms of calorie burning, diet plays a more important role. I.e. run an hour and burn 400kcal or just skip the dohnut, thats the point I am making. Surely exercise is essential for health purposes, just like just because someone is skinny doesnt mean they're healthy. Cavemen just didnt call it exercise, they called it hunting. I always like discussing topics cause I learn something every time. ???
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 06, 2010, 07:20:02 pm
Cavemen did plenty of everyday exercise that didn't necessarily involve hunting. The point being that they practised physical activity on an almost  constant basis.

As for those tribes you mentioned, most such tribes are nowadays not fullyon their traditional diets(the Masai now eat lots of grains, for example), many are suffering from alcoholism(eg:- the Inuit and the Australian Aborigines), plus none of them ate more than c.50% raw foods anyway, even in their heydays. I'll grant that their diets were far better than modern SAD diets and that they of necessity practised certain routines such as feast-and-famine cycles and increased daily  physical activity which helped alleviate some of the negative effects of their ancestral diets(which were often filled with grains and dairy, let alone cooked foods). But, really, the only suitable truly excellent examples of human health would have been found in the Palaeolithic era, before the advent of cooking.

Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 06, 2010, 10:49:14 pm
We are not caveman however, well me and you can consider ourselves cavemen. But the general population cannot consider themselves caveman, they are weak compared to the strong caveman. One rule of thumb is unless your diet is sound your exercise doesnt mean jack squat. Our diets are sound so we have the ability to recover faster and dont drain out our immune systems after exercise. The point Im making is that most people view exercise today as a prime weight loss technique, most people dont even consider diet. My argument is that if your diet is sound E.g. RPD, you shouldnt need the extra exercise. I myself exercise strength training only 3x a week and get great gains now that Ive switched to RPD. But before, I was doing 6x a week and sleeping 8hrs a day getting no gains and it was truly frustrating. Also, my body was always drained every day, I started to lose muscle mass and I felt like shit all the time, probably weakened my immune system also. Conclusion- My diet could not support the amount of exercise I was doing and/or the amount of exercise I was doing was overkill and sapping my testosterone and raising cortisol. This is what happens when people overtrain, they have a constant high level of stress that has the opposite effect of exercise. Long story short, I switched to 3x a week on my cooked paleo diet and even started to see gains and fat loss so that tells me that it was more over training related than diet. Once I switched to RPD though, my strength and muscle gains took off, this tells me that RPD was sufficient in providing all the nutrients to support muscle growth and testosterone production. Could RPD be sufficient for 6x a week at the gym? Probably, but why go 6x a week when you feel great and get great gains only 3x a week for 30min sessions? Ive seen people over train time and time again and it ends up being worse for them than not exercising at all. We live in an era where sperm levels are 75% lower than in 1960, and Testosterone levels are around 25% lower, 20 year olds that "cant get it up", infirtility is rampant, drugged up nations, obesity, diabetes. These people dont need more exercise, exercise does not heal like diet does. RPD will heal most maladies out there alone. Exercise is secondary. In fact for the majority of the population, exercise more than 3x a week could be detrimental to their bodies. These people dont have an RPD diet and cannot recover from extensive exercise. More is not always better.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 07, 2010, 01:44:58 am
While diet is more important than exercise, exercise is still absolutely necessary. The vast extra amounts of exercise that people did in the era before cooking would have made them far healthier and stronger than any of us modern rawpalaeos, though.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 13, 2010, 11:14:10 pm
... It is simply a question of processing. In other words, someone eating mostly unrefined raw carbs and only a little cooked/processed fat would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly cooked/processed fat and only a few raw carbs. ....
I don't want to get involved in this debate, Tyler, but I would just like to qualify your statement and once again ask you to speak for yourself rather than everyone, because while your statement applies to you it does not apply to me, nor to some others here. Yes, raw is better than cooked, but unrefined raw plant carbs affect me much more negatively than cooked/processed animal fat. I do not vomit when I eat cooked fat like you report and I do not thrive on raw fruits as I believe you report (please do correct me if I err).

BTW, out of curiosity, how well do you handle the best raw comb honey? Do you thrive on that as well?
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: klowcarb on June 14, 2010, 01:58:29 am
I would rather live on entirely cooked ZC and be active and never hungry that eat any raw plants and fruits and lose my abs and get that gnawing hunger back. No thanks! A lightly seared steak or cooked egg yolk is definitely healthier because these are foods for humans.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 14, 2010, 02:24:23 am
I don't want to get involved in this debate, Tyler, but I would just like to qualify your statement and once again ask you to speak for yourself rather than everyone, because while your statement applies to you it does not apply to me, nor to some others here. Yes, raw is better than cooked, but unrefined raw plant carbs affect me much more negatively than cooked/processed animal fat. I do not vomit when I eat cooked fat like you report and I do not thrive on raw fruits as I believe you report (please do correct me if I err).

BTW, out of curiosity, how well do you handle the best raw comb honey? Do you thrive on that as well?
  The fact is that the majority of RVAFers have issues with cooked foods but not with raw carbs. Same applies to the SAD-eaters given that there are multiple health-problems for older people, directly associated with intake of heat-created toxins derived from cooked foods. By contrast,  judging from multiple studies, most SAD-eaters do better, healthwise, by upping their intake of raw fruits/vegetables  and lowering their intake of cooked animal foods.

Now, sure there is a minority who, for various reasons, have developed serious intolerance towards all carbs, even unrefined, raw carbs, but that has to do with very unusual combinations of genetics, circumstances, perhaps being brought up on diets of very highly refined carbs causing more than usually severe insulin-resistance or whatever etc. etc. But, otherwise, what I said holds true for most people.

I wonder if you would be so keen re the above statement if you were given a choice of a diet consisting solely of 100% (cooked-well-done), highly processed animal foods or a diet with a sizeable proportion of raw carbs along with the usual raw animal fat.

As for raw honeycomb, I'm fine with it as long as I don't eat ridiculously large amounts of it all the time. Perhaps an occasional  6-10 ounces  in a 24-hour period is fine, and I might have, maybe, max. 20 or so such boxes in the whole of a summer these days. I don't like the notion of relying on raw honey/honeycomb as a mainstay of the diet as , like with raw eggs, many Primal Dieters have complained in the past re side-effects from overindulging in it.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Hans89 on June 14, 2010, 05:12:58 am
One rule of thumb is unless your diet is sound your exercise doesnt mean jack squat.

Exactly. Before I was eating raw meat, exercise just made my body painful for days, I didn't recover and couldn't improve after a certain point. I tried so hard to improve my health with exercise, but I actually felt better after giving it up.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Hans89 on June 14, 2010, 05:17:41 am
I didnt say that cooked saturated fats were healthy, I simply stated that they dont correlate to heart disease. I'll tell ya what, I'd take cooked saturated fats over cooked grains and carbohydrates any day. The real correlation is within the inflammation, and yes I'd have to agree AGE's play a big factor. Im just saying that the US lives in a fat phobic society. What people have to realize is carbohydrates are 100 times worse than fats. Even Weston Price said that while sugar consumption in US increased fat consumption decreased, and heart disease is skyrocketing, so whats the real correlation? A 1902 study posted by the New York Times stated that since 1870 sugar consumption increased 8 times. Since 1902, it increased 7 times. So we're looking at a society that eats roughly 15 times the sugar today than it did in 1870, WOW  :o. However during this sugar increase, fat esp sat fat has decreased.

Actually WAP didn't make a case for low-carb, and he studied a lot of (cooked) high-carb-eating people with great dental and overall health.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 14, 2010, 05:58:17 am
True, however he stated that fat consumption is not the problem. Instead refined white and processed sugars, flours and other processed foods. I dont always use Weston as a source for RPD info but the guy had some superb discoveries and we should all thank him because without his research IDK if RPD would be like it is today.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Paleo Donk on June 14, 2010, 06:29:01 am
I wonder if you would be so keen re the above statement if you were given a choice of a diet consisting solely of 100% (cooked-well-done), highly processed animal foods or a diet with a sizeable proportion of raw carbs along with the usual raw animal fat.

Heh, I didn't think I was the only one - http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/raw-vegetarianism-or-cooked-paleo-diet/
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 14, 2010, 07:02:37 am
 The fact is that the majority of RVAFers have issues with cooked foods but not with raw carbs.
I'm aware of that, and the fact also is that "majority" is not all and you know full well that there are multiple members here who don't do well on carbs, so please show a modicum of courtesy by stating "majority" if you mean it--especially here in the ZC forum. Frankly, at times you've used language that is decidedly unfriendly toward VLCers and ZCers, whether you mean to or not. I like having someone to debate with when I'm looking to explore a new or not fully hashed out subject, but it doesn't have to come with overly broad-brush or otherwise inconsiderate language. Sound arguments don't need that.

Quote
Same applies to the SAD-eaters given that there are multiple health-problems for older people, directly associated with intake of heat-created toxins derived from cooked foods. By contrast,  judging from multiple studies, most SAD-eaters do better, healthwise, by upping their intake of raw fruits/vegetables  and lowering their intake of cooked animal foods.
Again, most is not all. Not everyone does as well as you on raw fruits/vegetables, nor does everyone do as well on ZC/VLC as people like Pioneer, Katelyn, Lex, William and me. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the existence of people like us when you make statements about who does well/better on what.

Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if I reverse the language: I would not use the reverse broad-brush language of "someone eating mostly traditionally low-heat-cooked animal fat and only a little unrefined raw carbs would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly raw carbs and only a little traditionally cooked/processed fat." I would qualify it by referring only to myself or use other qualified language like "some people," or at least "most". You know that carbs vs. ZC/VLC is a contentious issue here and by using broad-brush language you encourage ZC proselytizers like Katelyn and William to make the opposite claims from yours. In other words, in addition to being inconsiderate, unqualified language incites your counterparts and starts up the old debates about carbs again.

Quote
Now, sure there is a minority who, for various reasons, have developed serious intolerance towards all carbs, even unrefined, raw carbs, but that has to do with very unusual combinations of genetics, circumstances, perhaps being brought up on diets of very highly refined carbs causing more than usually severe insulin-resistance or whatever etc. etc. But, otherwise, what I said holds true for most people.
Again, most is not all. If you mean most, then please say so in the future. I could live with that (even though I'm skeptical of the claim) and that's all I'm asking. I don't see it as a difficult request. An occasional ommission is understandable, but I've been here long enough to see that it has been a pattern for you to make statements that ignore the existence of people who do better on raw ZC/VLC than other raw diets. If you will not do it, that is your right, but it will signal that you do not wish to make ZCers/VLCers feel welcome here.

Quote
I wonder if you would be so keen re the above statement if you were given a choice of a diet consisting solely of 100% (cooked-well-done), highly processed animal foods or a diet with a sizeable proportion of raw carbs along with the usual raw animal fat.
My experience is similar to Lex's on this--if anything, he has reported fewer benefits from raw than I have. If the animal foods were cooked using traditional methods my guess is that I would fare better on that than on a diet high in raw carbs, based on my experience. In my case, eating raw instead of low-cooked provides a small additional benefit, but it doesn't come close to the benefit I've experienced by dramatically cutting down on plant carbs. You seem to find this hard to believe, but I believe you when your reports of your experience and try to show some civility by taking you at your word and I hope you will return the favor.

As for "well-done"--you didn't specify that (you wrote "only a little cooked/processed fat", which is what I was responding to) and I wasn't cooking well done before I went raw, it's unnecessary when cooking and even most many SAD advocates say not to overcook food, so it's irrelevant to my simple request on multiple counts. Changing the subject doesn't address my request.

Quote
As for raw honeycomb, I'm fine with it as long as I don't eat ridiculously large amounts of it all the time.
OK, thanks. I'm trying to get some sense of how other folks do on raw honeycomb and raw honey vs. raw fruits and where I fit in the spectrum of responses. Are there any differences between how you do on honey vs. fruit? Have you measured your 1 or 2 hour postprandial BG after eating either? I didn't buy any berries this week, so I didn't get a chance to test my PP BG after eating them, but still plan to do that.

Quote
Perhaps an occasional  6-10 ounces  in a 24-hour period is fine, and I might have, maybe, max. 20 or so such boxes in the whole of a summer these days.
Wow, that's actually more than I expected. How much do you pay for raw honeycomb (and sorry if you told me before)?

Quote
I don't like the notion of relying on raw honey/honeycomb as a mainstay of the diet as , like with raw eggs, many Primal Dieters have complained in the past re side-effects from overindulging in it.
I agree with you over AV on this. For me these seem secondary foods at best, rather than optimal foods as AV apparently sees them--though I leave open the possibility that they are optimal for some, as some people report thriving on them.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 14, 2010, 05:24:49 pm
I'm aware of that, and the fact also is that "majority" is not all and you know full well that there are multiple members here who don't do well on carbs, so please show a modicum of courtesy by stating "majority" if you mean it--especially here in the ZC forum. Frankly, at times you've used language that is decidedly unfriendly toward VLCers and ZCers, whether you mean to or not. I like having someone to debate with when I'm looking to explore a new or not fully hashed out subject, but it doesn't have to come with overly broad-brush or otherwise inconsiderate language. Sound arguments don't need that.
Well, you've also used such language as regards carb-eaters. That is inevitable since I've had bad experiences on RZC and you've had bad experiences on raw omnivorous. As for the issues re "majority", it's not necessary to mention such as I was talking in a general sense re the whole of humanity - obviously, in endless cases, there are always exceptions - for example, I could state, merely in passing, that it is characteristic for humans to have 2 legs and 2 arms, and get unfairly criticised by amputees, in a similiar fashion.

Besides, this was meant originally as merely a sticky topic for Stefansson's work, not as a discussion really, and should have been locked a long time ago(my fault). I only included the Stefansson reference as he is zero-carb and there are no raw, zero-carb gurus at present(well, Lex hasn't written a book as yet). Stefansson made many errors, including clearly deliberately false claims re the proportion of raw foods in the Inuit diet, and was ultimately a pro-cooked-food advocate.

Quote
Again, most is not all. Not everyone does as well as you on raw fruits/vegetables, nor does everyone do as well on ZC/VLC as people like Pioneer, Katelyn, Lex, William and me. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the existence of people like us when you make statements about who does well/better on what.

Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if I reverse the language: I would not use the reverse broad-brush language of "someone eating mostly traditionally low-heat-cooked animal fat and only a little unrefined raw carbs would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly raw carbs and only a little traditionally cooked/processed fat." I would qualify it by referring only to myself or use other qualified language like "some people," or at least "most". You know that carbs vs. ZC/VLC is a contentious issue here and by using broad-brush language you encourage ZC proselytizers like Katelyn and William to make the opposite claims from yours. In other words, in addition to being inconsiderate, unqualified language incites your counterparts and starts up the old debates about carbs again.
Again, most is not all. If you mean most, then please say so in the future. I could live with that (even though I'm skeptical of the claim) and that's all I'm asking. I don't see it as a difficult request. An occasional ommission is understandable, but I've been here long enough to see that it has been a pattern for you to make statements that ignore the existence of people who do better on raw ZC/VLC than other raw diets. If you will not do it, that is your right, but it will signal that you do not wish to make ZCers/VLCers feel welcome here.

Well, William and others have already used terms such as "evil carbs" and the like, in a rather more vehement way than raw omnivores have done as regards raw zero-carb. More to the point, I was merely stating a simple fact, that while everyone does worse with cooked foods to some extent, re increased aging spurred on by heat-created toxins etc., there are only a few who are affected badly by raw,unprocessed carbs. That was to show that cooking is a far bigger problem than carbs as such.And, incidentally, what about the minority who can handle carbs fine but who can't handle any fats at all? There are certain conditions which make that possible. Now I could, long-windedly qualify every statement I make by including every possible exception in my statements but that doesn't change the point, that the exceptions prove the rule.

The simple point is that my experience, along with a number of others, has been decidedly negative re RZC, so it is essential for such as us to warn about issues re such diets. Similiarly, some others, such as Lex and yourself, have not experienced the full benefits when eating raw carbs, so it is essential for you also to warn that raw carbs don't work for everyone. Either way, people benefit therefrom from 2 different viewpoints.


Quote
My experience is similar to Lex's on this--if anything, he has reported fewer benefits from raw than I have. If the animal foods were cooked using traditional methods my guess is that I would fare better on that than on a diet high in raw carbs, based on my experience. In my case, eating raw instead of low-cooked provides a small additional benefit, but it doesn't come close to the benefit I've experienced by dramatically cutting down on plant carbs. You seem to find this hard to believe, but I believe you when your reports of your experience and try to show some civility by taking you at your word and I hope you will return the favor.

As for "well-done"--you didn't specify that (you wrote "only a little cooked/processed fat", which is what I was responding to) and I wasn't cooking well done before I went raw, it's unnecessary when cooking and even most many SAD advocates say not to overcook food, so it's irrelevant to my simple request on multiple counts. Changing the subject doesn't address my request.

My challenge was actually quite appropriate. Simply put, a pro-cooked-food-advocate should be fine with "well-done" meats - any suggestion that "well-done" wasn't OK would imply cooking was bad. And the whole issue of the past argument in this thread re pioneer etc. is not what you suggest above but actually either that  raw is always better than cooking/processing, no matter how processed/cooked that diet may be, or that even highly-processed/cooked meats are always better than carbs, however raw. I seriously doubt you would be fine with hydrogenated lard or heavily hot-smoked meats, for example.


Quote
OK, thanks. I'm trying to get some sense of how other folks do on raw honeycomb and raw honey vs. raw fruits and where I fit in the spectrum of responses. Are there any differences between how you do on honey vs. fruit? Have you measured your 1 or 2 hour postprandial BG after eating either? I didn't buy any berries this week, so I didn't get a chance to test my PP BG after eating them, but still plan to do that.

I don't believe in measurements of the body as I don't believe they are of any real use, given all the widely different interpretations. As for fruit, I have only issues with tropical fruits, unless I go VLC for very long periods, in which case, my ability to handle fruits goes way down as the relevant bacteria etc/ are missing. Oh, I do get some sort of sudden shock to my mouth if I overindulge in raw honeycomb - feels as though my nerves are affected.


Quote
Wow, that's actually more than I expected. How much do you pay for raw honeycomb (and sorry if you told me before)?

c. 3 pounds sterling 50 pence per 8 ounces.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: pioneer on June 15, 2010, 06:34:38 am
When "people like us" refer to evil carbs we are simply referring to cooked and esp refined carbs or anything with a lot of carbohydrates in it. I tend to use this kind of language only for sugar. I only use this language when talking to an uneducated person who thinks fat is bad. And when one thinks about it, no carbs are not bad, however what food is high in carbs and good other than fruit. I for one barely eat fruit, but I eat plenty of veggies but still dont reach 50g a day. In other words, I dont even consider veggies carbs. A carb is not a carb is not a carb just like a calorie isnt a calorie. Carbs is a vague word. Im sure 50g of veggie carbs would proceed to have very different physiological and psychological processes than 50g of grains or fruit in your body. Surely the 50g of veggie carbs is better, not to mention we utilize the veggie carbs better and they dont spike insulin at all so no fat storing. See where we're coming from.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: TylerDurden on June 15, 2010, 05:23:58 pm
Actually, William was referring to raw carbs when complaining about "evil carbs". And the cooked-low-carb crowd who go on and on about the supposed "evils of carbs" routinely include raw fruits in that category.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 26, 2010, 08:25:36 am
...They had light that burned on fish or whale fat/oil for cooking and heat ...
Thanks for sharing that, Alpha. Could you expound on that a bit? In the past in this forum when I posted reports I found that various Arctic peoples at times used seal or whale oil to cook with it was greeted with derision. As I recall, I was told by the critics that it's not feasible to do any cooking with sea-creature oils and that they are only good for lighting. I don’t recall any counter evidence being offered.  I find it interesting that your report coincides with the written reports I found.
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: djr_81 on June 27, 2010, 06:06:05 am
Thanks for sharing that, Alpha. Could you expound on that a bit? In the past in this forum when I posted reports I found that various Arctic peoples at times used seal or whale oil to cook with it was greeted with derision. As I recall, I was told by the critics that it's not feasible to do any cooking with sea-creature oils and that they are only good for lighting. I don’t recall any counter evidence being offered.  I find it interesting that your report coincides with the written reports I found.

It would burn similar to a Sterno canister, IMO. It would be slow and not optimal to heat/cook something but it should work...
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Robinlove on September 11, 2017, 09:46:15 am
To summarize this hilarious thread... Continue to not see my husband - actually get divorced- eat only raw meat and eat lots of organs, and don't move in the Eskimos or I might turn into an alcoholic or get beat

Hahahaha this was amusing!!!
Title: Re: Stefansson's book online
Post by: Xisca on January 05, 2018, 10:07:43 pm
Here is the full online version of Stefansson's book "The Fat of the Land", posted as a sticky :-
http://www.zerocarbage.com/library/FOTL.pdf (http://www.zerocarbage.com/library/FOTL.pdf)
The link does not work?