Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Iguana

Pages: [1] 2
General Discussion / Uruguyan beef
« on: November 21, 2021, 03:56:59 pm »
Does anybody know if the beef from Uruguay is 100% grass fed ? Or is it "grain  finished" like in Argentina ?

Personals / What happened to Tyler Durden?
« on: July 30, 2020, 06:17:07 pm »
He's no longer been active on this forum since January 8, 2020!

Science / How Whales Change Climate
« on: August 08, 2017, 03:43:30 pm »

Suggestion Box / "Science" section
« on: August 07, 2017, 02:41:10 am »
The "Science" section should be moved out of the "Members only" part! Why is it there?

Science / 300,000 years Homo sapiens
« on: June 08, 2017, 04:41:05 am »
Fossils discovered in Morocco are the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens, scientists reported on Wednesday.

Dating back roughly 300,000 years, the bones indicate that mankind evolved earlier than had been known, experts say, and open a new window on our origins.
Until now, the oldest fossils of our species, found in Ethiopia, dated back just 195,000 years. The new fossils suggest our species evolved across Africa.

General Discussion / Disappeared members and mods...
« on: April 23, 2017, 03:50:08 am »
What happenned to Raw Kyle, Wodgina, RyZi, RawZi, Inger, Hannibal, ForTheHunt, KD an many others who were regular contributors?

They suddenly stopped posting without saying goodbye or anything!

Science / Evolution
« on: December 24, 2016, 04:20:00 am »
Scientific theories are formulated to explain known phenomena. When creationists say “evolution is only a theory” they are either A: agreeing that evolution occurs, because otherwise there could be no theory to explain it, B: lying, by pretending there is no difference between what the word “theory” means colloquially versus what it means in science, or C: demonstrating their ignorance of this distinction.

We have a theory of evolution to explain the evolution we know occurs in the world. We do not have a theory of unicorn flight dynamics because there is no evidence for flying unicorns.

The fact that evolution occurs had been recognized long before Darwin. Darwin merely hypothesized that natural selection was the mechanism behind it. What we would now call Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection was “only a theory” in the colloquial sense of something postulated as possibly true, but it has now been so well confirmed by multiple different lines of evidence from different fields that the only possible way if could be overturned is to demonstrate that we all live in The Matrix and all of reality is a sham.

At this point, it is only possible for scientific developments to refine our understanding of how evolution takes place and under what circumstances different forms of natural selection operate. Not only is evolution real, it’s arguably the best understood process in all of nature. It’s far more likely that new developments will disprove gravity, dark matter, or the perceived limit to the speed of light than that it will disprove evolution.

By the way and once again, why is this "Science" section "members only"? It would be much better open as it would show that the raw paleo movement is based on sound science!

General Discussion / Vacuum packed tuna and swordfish
« on: August 11, 2016, 04:24:59 am »
Has anyone seen what is written on the sticker of the vacuum packed tuna and swordfish fillets as the are delivered to the fishmongers? I saw it and it's written (from memory):
Contents: Tuna (or swordfish), salt, glutamate, E300, E350.

Suggestion Box / Background color
« on: August 11, 2016, 04:18:11 am »
Why did you change the background color of the forum, GS ? I preferred the brown of the previous version and it was in accordance with the headband. 

Info / News Items / Announcements / Sister forum in French
« on: July 10, 2016, 03:30:10 am »
For the ones who read French (LE, JK!), I remind the existence of the sister forum "Paleocru" which has seen a few new and interesting posts during the last days. It is also hosted by Edwin, alias Good Samaritan. 

General Discussion / World's vertebrate biomass
« on: January 10, 2016, 12:23:28 am »

From "Confessions of a Doomer"
by Ron Patterson Posted on 01/08/2016

Off Topic / On love
« on: March 27, 2015, 03:43:19 am »
Quote from: Tyler Durden signature
On love:"I don’t believe in love at first sight. I think it’s a grave mistake.You’re attracted by physical characteristics and you will regret it." Lee Kuan Yew

No, not at all, at least for me. Most of the time, I somehow feel what the girl/woman is really, beyond her physical appearance. Some may be very pretty, but I'm not attracted because I feel there's something I don't like in her behavior or her allure.

On the other hand, if her physical characteristics don't attract me, I won't be able to love her, no matter how kind, intelligent, sympathetic she's. Everything in her has to attract me, physical as well as mental. 

Off Topic / Mobile phones
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:56:18 pm »
Former Nokia Technology Chief: Mobile phones wrecked my health

Inger will appreciate!


Natural and social scientists develop new model of how 'perfect storm' of crises could unravel global system

A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that "the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history." Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to "precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite common."

The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics.

It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation:

    "The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."

By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.

These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five thousand years."

The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:

    "Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."

Productivity increases in agriculture and industry over the last two centuries has come from "increased (rather than decreased) resource throughput," despite dramatic efficiency gains over the same period.

Modelling a range of different scenarios, Motesharri and his colleagues conclude that under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."

    "Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."

The NASA-funded HANDY model offers a highly credible wake-up call to governments, corporations and business - and consumers - to recognise that 'business as usual' cannot be sustained, and that policy and structural changes are required immediately.

Although the study is largely theoretical, a number of other more empirically-focused studies - by KPMG and the UK Government Office of Science for instance - have warned that the convergence of food, water and energy crises could create a 'perfect storm' within about fifteen years. But these 'business as usual' forecasts could be very conservative.

Instability began with the use of fire, but really took off when we became farmers and founded civilizations.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Allergies / tolerance - intolerance
« on: February 13, 2014, 11:29:51 pm »
re raw dairy:- No one  really needs raw dairy for health reasons. Quite a large number of us have food-allergies towards raw dairy and have found it easy to find other raw foods which were far more useful than raw dairy in boosting general health.
Can’t we at last agree that GCB’s view of allergies is consistent and much more coherent with raw paleo than the common view?
So, what in itself is an "allergic" reaction? It is a reaction of the immune system that disturbs the host, because it is stronger than normally, resulting in unpleasant symptoms.

There is no clear boundary between so-called normal immune response against foreign molecules (called antigens to express the fact that they trigger antibody formation) and an allergic reaction, except that the latter seems to escape the normal regulatory mechanisms (which can be recognized in the silence of the organs).

Why can there be a relationship between NCS (New Chemical Species derived from processing that accumulate in the body) and common antigens (all molecules from the environment recognized as foreign by the organism: hair, dust mites etc.)?

For a very simple reason that we usually don’t think about enough: there are multitudes of "cross-reactions" between different antigens. "Cross reaction" means that two different antigens trigger the same reaction of the immune system because of similar molecular surfaces.

Principally, the immune system identifies each antigen and implements a specific reaction. Each antibody produced has molecular reliefs which correspond exactly to the reliefs of the antigenic molecule to which it is intended. There is little risk of confusion. But with the billions of possibilities, some reliefs still lead to confusion, calleds "cross reactions" by immunologist.

It is thus understandable that a reaction triggered by a new antigen may be of unexpected importance if a similar antigen has already been introduced into the body and has "sensitized" the immune system. Therefore, food antigens (incompletely degraded molecules crossing the intestinal barrier) can sensitize the immune system, so that other antigens (dust, pollen, etc.) will trigger apparently inexplicable cross-reactions. This will ultimately lead to an allergy to foreign antigens, without suspecting that the reaction itself is induced by food antigens.

The converse suggests that by stopping the penetration of these food antigens (switching to a natural diet which doesn't contain the same non-degradable molecules), the immune response to environmental antigens will decrease rapidly. This is what can commonly be observed after transition to instincto.

However, there are some cases where these reactions occur with delay. The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens, such as the effect of repetitive consumption of dairy products. Then it may happen years later that a new antigen, from an unusual food, from an insect bite, from a bacterium, will cause the awakening of the immune system (immunologists refer to it as "breakdown of tolerance"). This apparently inexplicable reaction thus may seem disproportionate.

Reactions of this type are called "detoxination reaction" in instincto slang. Note that antigens capable of "awakening" the immune system, can derive from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, or from another organism), but foods are most often sources of antigens that provoke a breakdown of tolerance.

This concept is compatible with conventional notions of immunology, except that immunologists have not yet realized the importance of food antigens since they are unable to show their effect in the too repetitive context of a traditionally cooked diet.
...and that our immune system having become and remaining tolerant to the foreign proteins uncontrollably ingested with dairy is a weakness apt to cause troubles in the long term rather than an advantage? (see the original post by clicking on its link for the quotes within that quote: )
Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet.  …

The assumption is that by eating cooked food or an excessive amount of any specific foodstuff, the body gets polluted by abnormal molecules and foreign proteins. Before becoming a part of us, ingested foreign proteins must be cut into amino acid which are subsequently re-formed in suitable human proteins, as well explained by Seignalet   under his point 3 here :
If you’re interested, you can read the complete explanation of Seignalet, which is quite technical. (select the text, copy and paste it on Word or whatever to get rid of the mess on the webpage) but certainly more accurate than my approximate attempt.

To make it short, cancerous cells continuously appear in our bodies. These are earmarked by what I think is called in English “antigen presentation”, so that the immune system can identify them and destroy them. Now, when the body is polluted by foreign proteins which trigger the cells  having included them to show a specific type of “antigene presentation” on their membrane, the immune system is thought to finally go “on strike” (tolerance),  failling to destroy those cells anymore as it would involve destruction of a large proportion of the body.

If, by an unfortunate coincidence, a cancerous cell happen to have precisely the same “antigene presentation” than the one the immune system is on strike against (tolerant), then it won’t be destroyed and will be able to freely proliferate.

That’s why GCB thinks an excessive consumption of proteins is dangerous, especially if those proteins have a shape only slightly different of human proteins, so that the immune system could too easily fail to recognize them as foreign. It appeared that meat of domestic mammals can easily be consumed in excess, leading to some foreign proteins having not been broken into amino acids by our enzymes to pass through the bowel lining.  That’s what would have led to the cancer of Nicole, according to GCB. This problem is much more acute with dairy products to which our adaptation is unlikely to be complete and our instinctive stop signals extremely weak.
See also this page which links articles outlining the danger of dairy consumption:

General Discussion / Short term and long term effects can be very different
« on: February 04, 2014, 12:22:58 am »
It is very often said on this forum, “experiment and do what works for you”.

This is a total nonsense because how could someone know what will work for himself / herself in the long run? It should be obvious that short term effects can be totally different than long term ones.

Do I really need to give some examples?

Take a person used to drink several cups of coffee per day. What will happen to her when suddenly deprived of coffee?

Take someone who has eaten a standard cooked diet during her whole life and give her a good raw paleo meal with the best wild meat and raw food available. What is likely to happen to her in the next few hours?

Hundreds of examples can be found. Detoxination is something making the issue even more complex.

The only safe way is to do what has been proven to work for others in the long run. 

In « Complexity Reduction in Automotive Design and Development », Ronald J. Ziegler wrote these fine excerpts (which I already quoted several times), perfectly applying to diet as well:

Because I moved to Portugal, I sell my property in SW France. There is about 8000 m2 of land including:
- a fenced poultry park with coop
- a spring with basin
- plenty of fruit trees all over the land
- nice view over the countryside with the surrounding forest, vineyards and fields
- big 2 floors house with 3 bedrooms, garage for 3 to 4 cars in the basement,
- external garage for garden machinery and/or one more car
- plenty of wild boars, deers and badgers available
- grass fed beef and mutton available from two farmers in the area

245,000 €

General Discussion / Stop taking synthetic vitamins and supplements!
« on: December 18, 2013, 06:03:04 am »

Doctors urge patients to 'stop wasting money' on vitamins

By Karen Kaplan

December 17, 2013, 1:12 p.m.

Looking for ways to save money in 2014? Doctors have a tip: Stop buying vitamins.

Time after time, studies have shown that vitamin and mineral supplements don’t prevent disease or death. And yet consumers keep buying them, lament the authors of an editorial published in Tuesday’s edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

A 2011 report from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated that 53% of American adults used some type of supplement in the years 2003 to 2006, with multivitamin/multimineral formulations being the most popular. Those pills weren’t cheap – U.S. consumers spent $28 billion on them in 2010 alone, the editorial says.

Three new studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine add yet more data to the mountain of evidence that most people get all the vitamins and minerals they need from food:

A meta-analysis conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force found “no consistent evidence that the included supplements affected CVD (cardiovascular disease), cancer, or all-cause mortality in healthy individuals without known nutritional deficiencies. Other systematic reviews have arrived at this same conclusion.” The analysis was based on the results of 27 studies involving more than 450,000 people.

A study involving nearly 6,000 male doctors age 65 and older found that cognitive function and verbal memory were no better in the men who took a daily multivitamin than in men who took a placebo. The doctors were tracked for 12 years.

Finally, a clinical trial testing whether a multivitamin could help prevent serious heart problems – including death – in patients who already had one heart attack concluded that the supplements didn’t help.

These results were right in line with other studies that have found “no clear benefit” from taking multivitamins, antioxidants, folic acid and B vitamins, the editorial says.

And those are the good outcomes. Trials of beta-carotene, vitamin E and high doses of vitamin A linked those supplements with an increased risk of premature death.

As far as the five editorial writers are concerned, the jury is still out on only one supplement – vitamin D. Studies to assess whether extra vitamin D could prevent falls in older people have had mixed results. As researchers continue to sort this out, consumers should be aware that there’s no “solid evidence” that this vitamin will be helpful to most people.

“The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified, and they should be avoided,” the five physicians write.

And just in case that message is not simple enough, the headline spells things out even more clearly – “Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.”,0,3582353.story#ixzz2nluqHgGs

General Discussion / Uruguayan beef from grass-fed cattle
« on: October 15, 2013, 03:37:13 am »
Searching for grass-fed beef in Portugal, I stumbled into this article :
New York Times praises the quality of Uruguayan beef from grass-fed cattle

Sunday, December 20th 2009

The New York Times dedicated a long piece to the quality and rising pre-eminence of Uruguayan beef in world markets, contrary to what is happening in neighbouring Argentina, still considered “king of the best beef in the world”

For more than a century, Argentina has distinguished its beef as healthier and more natural than meat from most of the world. Cows ambled leisurely across the rich soil of the Humid Pampa munching on green grass, not the grains offered in crowded feedlots in the faster-paced American industry.

But that image could become a memory from a bygone era. Political decisions by Argentina are changing the taste of the famed Argentine steak and threatening to tarnish the country’s world-renowned beef industry.

The changes have driven away investors, reduced the size of Argentina’s herd and given the nation’s smaller neighbour, Uruguay, the chance to capitalize on Argentina’s troubles by billing itself as the “last big farm” for healthier, grass-fed cattle
But faced with a prolonged drought this year and concerns over their profits, many ranchers are converting their pastures into land for soybean cultivation. Now government incentives to fatten cattle faster are deepening a shift toward raising more Argentine beef with grains like corn and oats in often-crowded feedlots, opening the door for Uruguay to claim the grass-fed advantage.
Uruguay is trying to show the world it is dedicated to “natural” beef — grass-fed and hormone-free by law. One marketing campaign features a symbol of a supermarket bar code emerging from blades of grass. Another points out that each Uruguayan cow, on average, grazes on pasture the size of two soccer fields

Suggestion Box / Gross topic deleted
« on: October 01, 2013, 05:03:06 am »
    ...Which brings me to this question: how can I refer my friends to this forum when posts like this one are allowed to remain? Granted, I am proposing a curtailment of free speech, but if we are so concerned with proofreading for correct spelling so that "others" do not think we are uneducated, we should be that much more concerned with polite content. Statements such as "BUURNNNNNN U SAD S*** EATING T***" are (IMO) much worse that misspellings. I fail to see anything in the content of this post that promotes or explains RPD&L.
I agree 100%. Hence the fact that I DON'T send people here to learn about nutrition. The forum is far too poorly moderated to risk sending someone here, in my opinion.

I deleted the topic. Thanks to Eveheart and to Eric for the above remarks and sorry for the delay in removing that dirt. The problem is that we are several mods and one doesn't want to act alone without the approval of others. 

Info / News Items / Announcements / Is the Paleo Diet Healthy?
« on: April 27, 2013, 03:38:48 pm »
An interesting article

The dietitian author should read GCB because he would find answers to all his points.

By the way, what's wrong with legumes and why wouldn't they be paleo? We haven't found that they trigger any problem.

Off Topic / What is your job / area of knowledge ?
« on: March 08, 2013, 03:21:16 am »
It would be nice to know each other job. It could also guide us to the knowledgeable person if we need some info or help on a particular matter. It’s not necessarily a job, someone may be competent in an area without it being his or her job.

For example, we know that GS is a computer engineer, so if we have a question or a problem about a computer, we can ask him.

To start with myself, I’ve an oenologist diploma, but I’m totally incompetent in that field since I never practiced and forgot almost everything I had learned. The wine making techniques have also probably evolved since I obtained my diploma in 1966.

The same year, I’ve got my heavy trucks driving license and I spent a major part of my live driving all kinds of trucks in Switzerland, in Europe between Portugal to Finland and Ukraine, from England to Iraq, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia. I mostly drove for companies, either as an employee or on my own (billing for my hours of service), but also had my own trucks (one at the time) from 1974 to 1977.

Stopped that job in 2002 and since then I work at home as an automotive technical writer. I don’t know anything about electronics, being particularly specialized in engine and transmission technology. Still there are a lot of things in these topics that I’m ignorant about.


Info / News Items / Announcements / The Dark Side of Wheat
« on: October 01, 2012, 04:25:03 am »
Ah, ha, ha!  ;)

The globe-spanning presence of wheat and its exalted status among secular and sacred institutions alike differentiates this food from all others presently enjoyed by humans. Yet the unparalleled rise of wheat as the very catalyst for the emergence of ancient civilization has not occurred without a great price. While wheat was the engine of civilization’s expansion and was glorified as a “necessary food,” both in the physical (staff of life) and spiritual sense (the body of Christ), those suffering from celiac disease are living testimony to the lesser known dark side of wheat. A study of celiac disease and may help unlock the mystery of why modern man, who dines daily at the table of wheat, is the sickest animal yet to have arisen on this strange planet of ours.

Part 1 of whole article here

Part 2

This topic has been moved to the "Primal Diet" section.

Instincto / Anopsology / Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 23, 2011, 05:03:41 pm »
Organic means nothing these days. Go for 100 percent grassfed meats or wild game meats, all raw, of course. Fish, fruit are fine, though less of a staple of the diet than meat, if possible. Keep nut consumption very low, though.
I eat as many unsoaked nuts as I like (one kind at a time, though). You just can't overeat them if they haven't been heated and if you don't process nor mix them. Vegetables are fine, I eat some almost everyday. Eggs and shellfish can be delicious. Consumption of too much muscle meat from domesticated animals, even 100% grass fed, has proved to be dangerous in the long run, inducing tumors. Hopefully, meat from wild animals having no access to garbage should be ok even consumed in large amount, as long as organs and marrow are eaten along. We should probably eat more small animals, birds and insects (bee brood, for example) as well.

Pages: [1] 2
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk