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.

Messages - Squall

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Off Topic / Search Feature
« on: May 03, 2010, 03:20:44 pm »
What's up with the search feature? Not sure if anyone else is having any issues, but I haven't been able to get it to work in awhile.

Hunting is not just a means to get food, William.

It is also simply tremendous fun

One may become quite addict to. And addiction prevents sound reasoning and seriously impairs our ability to forecast the consequences of our activities.

Is an addiction to hunting being offered as evidence that mankind completely destroyed megafauna populations during the Pleistocene and early Holocene eras?

OK Squall, I first thought you're just an hypocrite but you're obviously also an plain idiot.

Obviously. Welcome back in any case.

From your link (emphasis added):

Such disappearances have normally been considered as either a response to climate change, a result of the proliferation of modern humans, or both ...

Again (emphasis added):

The extinction of megaherbivores in the late Pleistocene is explained by one of two hypotheses, or a combination of the two: climate change, and the ecological impact of early humans. Not only hunting, but anthropogenic fire selected for the survival of ruminants more than the survival of browsing mammals, and against carnivores and scavengers which fed on both.

The language being used in these assertions is that of conjecture. If evidence being supplied as conjecture was sufficient to prove an hypothesis true, then the following statement (also taken from your link) would also be true:

... in 2007 a cometary impact hypothesis was presented ...

Conjecture is not evidence.

It is absurd or just hypocrisy and at any rate ridiculous ...

Use of invective doesn't make your argument more sound. Also, I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is.

It isn't a prevalent theory (hypothesis really) except where some preach the doctrine of contempt for aboriginals including paleolithic man.
I don't remember the extinctions in Diamond's book, maybe because my bullshit filter caught it.

As I recall, Diamond's theory was a little more complex. To him, megafauna included animals that still exist today, i.e. elephants, rhinoceri, etc. The reason that they survived the paleolithic was because they had developed a wariness for humans that the other megafauna somehow did not get. According to him, the African animals evolved side by side with humans, and so were acclimated from the get go to humans trying to hunt them. Apparently, human hunting early in our evolution was somewhat poor (understandably), and as the millenia wore on, those animals developed an instinct to stay away from them by simple exposure. By the time early humans were efficient enough at killing large prey, the African megafauna were keen to keep their distance. Once early humans migrated to the rest of the world, they encountered megafauna that were much more docile regarding humans being in their vicinity. Accordingly, all megafauna outside of Africa were eventually eradicated due to over hunting, while the African strains continued to survive until this day.

When do you suppose someone will explain all those frozen mammoths? And how about all those bones of large tropical animals on the Arctic islands to the north?

I will agree with you that much evidence supports the various catastrophist theories out there. In fact I remember reading news articles that talked about entire herds being basically flash frozen. The level of preservation was so high, that when the herds were unearthed, the fur still covered the creatures and their final meals were still distinctly discernible in their stomachs.

Hopefully, we won't need to discuss evidence supporting catastrophist theories in this thread, though. I'm really only interested in compiling a source of the various evidence advanced to support the human-caused extinctions.

Not even these statements are true. If, as you claim now you were talking about isometric scaling, increasing the muscle strength by a factor of 10 means that you increase muscle cross-sectional area by that factor of 10 or the linear scale by the square root of 10 i.e. by a factor of a bit more as 3.1. This implies with isometric scaling an increase in volume or weight of the animal by a factor about 31 and by no means a factor of 100 as you claimed erronously in your previous post.

Moreover allometric rather than isometric scaling obviously does take place in biology and so your argument is merely out of topic and irrelevant anyway.

Those statements were just an illustration of proportionality. Like PaleoDonk implied, there is much more going on in living organisms, the least of which is the fact that muscles don't typically assume simple geometric shapes (like cylinders). However, the scaling factors are of immense importance, and you still seem to not be understanding it.

From your own link:

Isometric scaling is governed by the square-cube law. An organism which doubles in length isometrically will find that the surface area available to it will increase fourfold, while its volume and mass will increase by a factor of eight.

From the embedded link to the square-cube law:

When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier.

And back again to your supplied link:

This can present problems for organisms. In the case of above, the animal now has eight times the biologically active tissue to support, but the surface area of its respiratory organs has only increased fourfold, creating a mismatch between scaling and physical demands. Similarly, the organism in the above example now has eight times the mass to support on its legs, but the strength of its bones and muscles is dependent upon their surface area, which has only increased fourfold. Therefore, this hypothetical organism would experience twice the bone and muscle loads of its smaller version.

So where you're having trouble with this completely escapes me. I've used your reference and the math is sound. If you don't like 10's, just redo the cylinder math I did above with 2's. You still have to square them, so instead of 100, you'll get 4. If all you're doing is arbitrarily picking one dimension and increasing it, then ya, it will increase linearly. But the result isn't an object of the same proportion, which is precisely what I and your own reference are talking about.

I'm saying that we know much more about megafauna extinction and the major role our species played in this phenomenon, a reality at odds with your ridiculous and pretentious claims.

Moreover you've most likely perfectly well got my point and as PaleoPhil I'll spent no more time arguing with hypocrites. 

The least you can do is to address how my claims are ridiculous and pretentious, and how I am an hypocrite. But then I guess you're through with this thread. How convenient.

And as far as the "reality" of humanity's role in megafauna extinction, it wasn't my aim to debate its merits in this thread. However, that debate has happened, and since then I've found it engaging, though its burdening the original post. Therefore, I'll continue discussion in its own thread, which I have started here:

In these forums I've heard many times that the evidence that humans are responsible for the extinction of the paleolithic megafauna is overwhelming. Although I'm sure there is more, only two concrete items have surfaced so far which have been considered evidence.

1. Megafauna no longer exist today.
2. Its hard to disprove that we aren't responsible.

I consider both of these insufficient on logical grounds.

1. Megafauna no longer exist today

Consider the logical form of this argument:

Mammoth used to exist. When they did, humans hunted them. Mammoth no longer exist. Therefore, humans are responsible via over hunting.

This argument is a non-sequitor. Unless direct evidence can be shown that humans positively killed off every single live mammoth capable of reproduction, it will remain so.

2. Its hard to disprove that we aren't responsible

I'll go one further. Its downright impossible at this point to prove that we aren't responsible. However, that used as evidence does not make an argument true. In fact, this statement relies on the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative in which observable or verifiable evidence cannot be had.

To illustrate the fallacy, consider this statement:

Unicorns exist, because its very difficult to prove that they don't.

Although you could not prove anyone wrong who said this, I don't think it would convince you that unicorns do in fact exist. At best, you might concede to the person that so far, neither you nor him have seen one.

Like I said, there is probably more evidence that I have not been confronted with. Personally, the first time I heard that humans were responsible for these extinctions was in Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. I thought it made sense at first, but it never really sat well with me. Until recently, I had no idea that it was a prevalent theory.

This is just plain wrong reasoning.

What scaling theory in biology actually tells us can be learned here instead.

If just muscle cross-sectional area increases by a factor of 10 and its length remains unchanged it scales precisely as the volume or mass of the animal and everything would be OK. There is no factor of 100 in weight change.


The subsection under that link entitled Isometric Scaling is precisely what I'm talking about. In fact what they call the square-cube law is another way of describing a strength-weight ratio.

You're understanding of proportionality is lacking. Let's use a cylinder as a test. The volume of a cylinder is computed as the product of pi, the square of the radius, and its height. If you were to increase the size of a cylinder by factor of 10, you would be increasing its radius and its height by the same amount. So a cylinder with a radius of 10cm and a height of 10cm would have a cross-sectional surface area of 314 square cm, and a volume of 3140 cubic cm. A cylinder with a radius and height of 100cm would have a cross-sectional surface area of 31400 square cm and a volume of 3.14 million cubic cm. Whereas the cross-sectional surface area changed by a factor of 100, its volume changed by a factor of 1000.

This is an important concept regarding muscles. The maximal strength a muscle can reach is a function of the cross-sectional surface area of the muscle at its thickest point. If one were inclined to double the strength of a muscle, its volume would increase as the square, yielding at least an increase of 4 units. The volume may have to increase further to keep the muscle stable, as thicker (and stronger) muscles need larger heads with which to attach to internal structures. Therefore, as muscles get larger, the volume they take up increases as well. That proportion is not linear though; in fact, its volume varies directly as the square of area.

Quote from: Alpharuis
Quote from: Squall
I think all that the evidence indisputably shows is that they were wiped out, period.

This is just wishful thinking. Period.

Are you saying that the evidence does not indisputably show that megafauna were wiped out? Is there evidence that they were not wiped out?

Quote from: Alphagruis
As most of your post(s) about our species's so called "ability to forecast" what were the consequences of its behaviour and activities on the ecosystems it lived in. Very funny.

I'm not even sure I understand this question. If you're asking me what the consequences of paleolithic man's ability to forecast were, that seems kinda broad.

There are several obvious flaws in some of the above claims. First of all, elephants don't have the biggest size possible of all land animals. There were plant-eating dinosaurs of a far bigger size than mere elephants, so  mammoths could easily live and survive with their much smaller size, by comparison.

I wouldn't use dinosaurs here to help the argument Tyler, as they exacerbate the problems with strength-weight ratios. Elephants (according to wikipedia) are the largest land animals today. They are quite ponderous and require extremely sturdy frames. The majority of their muscle mass is tied up in keeping them upright and building momentum when necessary. The tyrannosaurus (which is one of the smaller dinosaurs) was easily a match for an elephant in terms of average height and size. Clearly, much less muscle mass is being concentrated in the lower frame, and in fact, a major amount resided in the jaw alone. Yet we're to believe that the T Rex was able to execute extremely tight maneuvers in minimal time while hunting smaller, quicker prey? Now consider a massive sauropod. Even paleontologists were aware that there were some inherent difficulties in their existence. They used to reason it away by saying that they spent their entire lives in the water where their mass would be buoyed. That theory has been discarded in recent decades, however, as prolific fossilized sauropod footprints were found. Now the unstable structure implications are just ignored.

Quote from: Tyler
Also, it makes perfect sense, economically and logically, for palaeo tribes to eat the flesh of any fellow tribal members who die in the hunt or from old age etc. Killing other tribes for food would provide a partial explanation for why palaeo populations stayed relatively static for long periods.

Eating the dead makes sense in an odd way, at least when you don't consider the diseases that tend to be inherent in eating the flesh of the same species. Keep in mind, you're talking about a sub species that no longer exists. We aren't neanderthals, and they died out somehow. I've read quite a few theories. Honestly, they don't interest me, because we are not descended from them. However, tribes killing each other for food will never work out in the long run. Aside from destroying your trading partners, you're eliminating potential cooperative arrangements in hunting, as well as needlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own hunters. Hunters died during the hunt, no doubt. Those were due to enraged, cornered animals. Going up against other hunters seems like the potential loss of life would be markedly higher.

Like I said before, its very difficult for modern people to determine just how highly paleolithic man judged human life. I believe its value was considered high; you apparently disagree. Economics is on my side though, as the supply of food-gathers was very low then. Things which are scarce, are things which are conserved.

Quote from: PaleoPhil
So your fear is not that it's going to "scare people away" in general, but rather that it's going to scare away the sort of people you want around and attract those you don't, yes?

Nice try. Let me ask you this: if I were a moderator and I told you that your negative ranting wasn't in the best spirit of the community, or, if a moderator told you the same thing that I did, would you ask them this same inane question?

Quote from: PaleoPhil
Tyler and Alphagruis are doing a sufficient job of refuting your unsupported claims re: megafauna extinction and related matters, so I'll leave it to them.

How are they unsupported again? I've used math, logic, and basic economic principles to point out inconsistencies. Are these not sufficient? You may disagree with my positions, but at least do me the courtesy of recognizing that I'm supporting my arguments.

Quote from: PaleoPhil
If it's "not an unpopular motif, even in these forums" then why would it "scare people away" more than it would attract people in? Are you admitting that it's at least unpopular outside of these forums?

I'm expressing my belief that outside of these forums its already an established and popular motif. In addition, I'm saying that this motif is creeping into this community where it doesn't really belong. Whether or not mankind is guilty of wholesale slaughter on an unprecedented scale bears little relation to the purpose of these boards, i.e. to assist those with questions regarding a diet of raw meat, fat, etc. I'm afraid that indulging this motif will scare away those who just want their questions answered, and draw in more people who just want to rant about their fellow man.

Quote from: PaleoPhil
I can't be guilty of BOTH promoting a "doom and gloom" view of the Stone Age AND of promoting a "noble savage" view of an idyllic Stone Age.

For the record, I never accused you of either. I did however imply that you were in the doom and gloom group. The Noble Savage myth may be wrong on many counts, but at least its positive in nature. I'm all for staying on topic, but if anyone is to stray, I'd rather have them perpetuate a positive myth then a negative one, if only because many people come here looking for anything but more stress, guilt, etc.

Quote from: PaleoPhil
If you have SPECIFIC facts that point in a different direction, then by all means share them, otherwise you're posts will serve mostly as time-wasting rantings ...

Read the following and tell me this isn't an instance of the pot calling the kettle black. When you're done, maybe you can explain how this advances the OP's questions regarding paleo carbs.

Quote from: PaleoPhil
... our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.

Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. ...

Quote from: PaleoPhil
This is one of the most common errors I've noticed in discussion forums--making negative assumptions about the motivations and thinking of others instead of investingating to find out what people's actual views and motivations are. I've noticed that when such assumptions are made that they are often the most negative imaginable, which seems more like ad hominem and setting up straw men than honestly addressing controversial issues. We've probably all made this error at some point in our lives, but surely it's best to try to avoid it as much as possible. If you have questions about why a specific person here or elsewhere finds overhunting to be a plausible important factor (not necessarily the only one) in the extinction of multiple megafauna or why someone is skeptical of some of William's extravagant claims about the Stone Age and Stone Agers, then feel free to ask them (or in the case of people outside this forum like published scientists, read their forum/blog posts, articles or books) instead of making assumptions. Then if you disagree with the reasons given, share why you do instead of just attributing their views to sociopathy, self-loathing, etc.

Although pervasive in society, the incessant attribution of every natural calamity to human beings is an incredibly negative viewpoint. To have such a perspective while discounting nature's obvious capriciousness, power, and unpredictability falls under the definition of sociopathy. IMO, many people look for any conceivable reason to blame mankind for anything. Over-hunting is one theory about why megafauna no longer exist. Changes in key environmental factors (which today preclude the existence of extremely large land animals) is another. They share the same evidence: a lack of megafauna today. Paleontologists more often than not choose the first, and educational curricula based on their theories don't even bother to inform students that other viable theories exist. This is a specific instance of the general format explained above.

I don't think questioning the bases of mainstream paleontologists' theories is constructing a straw man argument, especially given that relevant viewpoints aren't even considered for the most part: i.e. basic structural engineering principles.

Regarding assumptions, if you read my posts, you'll find that I make very few. About the only one made previously was that the tendency to blame humans for everything stems from a deep-rooted psychological distress. Good thing when I made that, I was sure to qualify it as an opinion. Those opinions, however, were not used as a basis for a counter-argument; they were attempts to ferret out why current theories exist, all within a similar (and macabre) vein of thought. My counter-arguments actually are just logical deductions that attempt to expose fallacies in the original. The most common fallacy I see here is the argument from convention. Aside from that, I've taken issue with discounting the ability of paleolithic man to properly rationalize his situation. So far, no one has answered why several people are doing this. Also no one has addressed the arguments from convention that both William and I have pointed out.

Miles, the higher concentration of oxygen theory is one theory put forward to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs. I've never seen it related to paleolithic megafauna. However, it still overlooks the basic structural engineering principle that as the cross-sectional surface area of a support (muscle) increases, its volume, and therefore weight, will increase as the square. Put simply, if elephants were 10 times stronger, they would be 100 times heavier to accommodate the increased muscle mass. Conversely, if they were 1/10 their current strength, the amount of mass comprising that muscle would be approximately 1/100 of their current mass.

Your previous  ridiculous notion that  palaeo humans had nothing to do with that is absurd, of course. Any significant evidence shows that humans wiped out huge amounts of megafauna c. 40,000 years ago, well within the Palaeolithic era.

I think all that the evidence indisputably shows is that they were wiped out, period. The anthropogenic cause is merely a mental leap made by some paleontologists who, imo, are intellectually lazy, and probably have some deep-seated, self-destructive tendencies that lead them to blame themselves for every single environmental or ecological catastrophe. Seriously, as a collective whole, the human race seems to have an unfathomable obsession with playing the victim on a massive scale.

Tyler, I remember talking about cannibalism a while back, but I don't remember the verdict being that it was widely practiced. That it was practiced is most likely indisputable. That it was a normal course of paleolithic life seems far from true. Cannibalism being practiced on such a large scale would entail warfare on a large scale (unless we're to believe that the victims voluntarily yielded themselves up for the feast), and warfare on a large scale would have been impossible in times of such privation. The opportunity cost of working together, even inter-tribally, would have been so high as to make any other alternative seem positively ridiculous to our ancestors. People may value human life very cheaply today, and maybe that makes it easier for them to kill, but let's not make the fallacious argument that our ancestors had the exact same subjective valuations of life that some of their descendants do.

Also, I find cannibalism economically infeasible. Who makes the determination that its a better idea to kill and eat another hunter instead of working together with that person over years and years to make large kills? A few meals of a fellow human, or hundreds of more nutrient dense meals of megafauna that were the result of cooperation with a person you could've eaten? I know some here have discounted our ancestor's ability to forecast, but are we now discounting their ability to make simple economic decisions? The composite view being painted here is truly astonishing. I'm not sure how I could even be here typing on a computer connected to a vast, decentralized network of millions of others, if I was the descendant of such blood-thirsty, cannibalistic imbeciles.

I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.

Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. I realize that this is an unpopular conclusion (especially with the afore-mentioned vegans and Paleo utopians like brother William), but it seems inescapable to me based on the evidence, and winning popularity contests has never been my goal. :)

This is definitely not an unpopular motif, even in these forums. The idea that humankind is pervasively destructive with a past and present "drenched in blood" and a future full of doom and gloom with no way out is actually quite common. Its pretty much par for the course when you turn on the radio, TV, or read the latest NY Times bestseller. I've come to understand this reasoning as a form of sociopathy, or at the very least, self-loathing.

Quote from: alphagruis
Unpopular conclusion indeed but inescapable, I agree with PaleoPhil and definitely disagree with the idyllic view of William

I don't think William's view of the pre-neolithic is idyllic at all. He seems to think mankind had an innate sense of conservation. Why would he not? He knew how to make tools, identify edible plants, harness fire, etc. He could conceptualize, vocalize, count, and make sophisticated art. But he couldn't forecast?

William also (though not explicitly) is pointing out a fallacious argument. Assuming that the past is as messed up as the present is just a form of argument from convention which is a non-sequitor. Do your progenitors some respect at least and show some evidence to back up your claims that they were so inherently destructive and blood-crazed. While you're at it, explain how you're here to explain all this given that you and the rest of the human race should have already perished.

I'm keenly aware that the dominant solution to the megafauna problem is over hunting, at least in uniformitarian circles. I'm also aware that megafauna were large, much larger than elephants which are probably the largest land animal. From my understanding, elephants are already pushing the limits of the strength-weight ratio, so I have no idea how animals significantly larger (like mammoths) even managed to lift themselves off the ground under current gravitational acceleration. I can easily imagine, however, a narrow-minded paleontologist making up a simple but lame theory about humans "killing too much" to answer a complex question.

Also, I wanted to caution many of you here about the doom and gloom. I usually look past it because I know there's good info here. However, more and more, posters are going off-topic with their personal views about how horrible the human race is. If these forums are here to serve people with questions of an RPD nature, then this off-topic nonsense should cease, or you're going to scare people away.

Primal Diet / Re: youtube video of long-term primal dieter
« on: April 22, 2010, 02:32:01 am »
Reading this thread is like reading bad economics. The majority of you appear to be making reverse Malthusian arguments. Only problem is, Malthus, and all of his doom-saying descendants, have been systematically wrong. Mainly this is because they misunderstand some fundamental aspects of markets.

Whether or not the world will ever be able to sustain billions of people on an RPD-style diet is not a question anyone can really answer in the present. Nor do they need to. That is merely a production/distribution problem for future suppliers who will have different information than we do. Whether or not they solve that problem isn't so much a matter of possibility as it is profitability. If prices for grass-fed beef are so high because demand is so high, entrepreneurs will be signaled into those markets where they can innovate, reduce prices, and generate profits.

Malthus discounted the role of profit-driven innovation in his equations, and in your discourse many of you are doing the same thing. Believe it or not, food distribution problems aren't really problems for consumers to solve. These problems are entrepreneurial problems. The risk of solving them will be voluntarily accepted by future entrepreneurs in anticipation of profit using information we don't have and innovations we would never have thought of.

Furthermore, I don't think any of you have to worry about increased demand cutting off your supply. The more people consuming grass-fed meat will most likely drop the price in the long-term, absent of course any legislative meddling.

Off Topic / What are chickens supposed to eat?
« on: September 18, 2009, 04:15:06 pm »
Apparently I've been away for awhile.

Anyway, I was trying to wrap my head around the "optimal chicken diet". Now, I realize the question might seem absurd or at least unknowable, considering chickens haven't really been observed in their wild habitats since ... well, ever. Closest thing I can think of is maybe they eat bugs, worms, and maybe some seeds?

Health / Re: Receding Gumlines
« on: May 28, 2009, 05:11:24 am »
Tyler, how loose were your teeth? Were they really close to falling out or something? I've noticed some slight loosening in some of my own. They don't move around on their own, but if i wiggle hard enough, there is the slight sensation of movement. Needless to say, I don't wiggle them much out of fear of exacerbating what could be a growing problem. I also notice some jaw popping, but I'm not sure if that's related.

Health / Receding Gumlines
« on: May 19, 2009, 11:46:57 am »
For the past few weeks I've been dealing with tooth pain. At first I though maybe cavities ... then I actually lifted my lip to check the gum line. Well, they're definitely receding. Its not too bad, but its bad enough to expose parts of the teeth that are normally covered (hence the pain when eating sometimes).

Anyone else have any stories about treating/reversing this? I would hate to think that when gums go, they're gone for good. But if that's the case, then oh well ...

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Overeating
« on: December 11, 2008, 02:29:50 pm »
I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I do want to point out that an endocrine system compromised by decades of toxic food may play a large role in inhibiting proper digestion and sending false signals. Depending on who you are, the above might be fine advice, but it may not work for everyone, as most everybody's body has been abused in unique ways relative to others.

I myself am still trying to find my zone as far as eating well and feeling well, too. If I ate what my body told me to, then I would be eating refined carbs all day. Conversely, if I eat all raw with a good dose of fat, I feel panicky and anxious and am all but useful at work. If I eat high-quality cooked meat, I tend to feel really good, even though I'm pretty sure that raw is much more healthy. I attribute the disparity between feeling well and eating well to a messed up system, including the strong desire for stuff that my paleolithic ancestors never ate.

Call me a pessimist, but listening to the body in the early stages of this life style when things are rough and all out of whack does not sound like a good idea to me. Perhaps after a few years, the body is more attuned to its true needs, and listening to it would be prudent. This is my opinion, and its merely based on my own experiences. That being said, I'm glad you found your sweet spot, Kristelle. I'll find mine one day as well.

General Discussion / Re: Slankers order
« on: December 03, 2008, 07:40:36 am »
bison suet
lamb fat
marrow bones
goat heart
goat spleen
ground goat
beef tongue
bison cutlets
turkey breast
boar sausage

That boar sausage is delicious! Its about the only thing I actually look forward to eating raw ... which probably means its not good for me :(

General Discussion / Re: Slackers questions
« on: December 02, 2008, 07:09:22 am »
I created a screen-scraping bot awhile back that took data from Slanker's site(s) and put it all in one place. Here's a link to the web page that accesses the database built on the scraped data:

Slankers' Meat Prices

It helps me figure out what I want to buy and how much it weighs and costs, because there are limits. I think its like 75.00 USD and 15 lbs.

Anyway, I've got longer-term plans to make a central site for grass fed meat vendors in the states, just haven't got around to it yet. I think i should also add some functionality to do comparisons and maybe even some sort of virtual shopping cart where prices and weights can be kept track of! Feel free to leave some feedback, too.

P.S. The DB needs some tweaking, as I think Mr. Slanker made some changes which resulted in near duplicate entries.

Hot Topics / Re: American usage
« on: November 26, 2008, 04:42:56 am »
One of the oddities of American usage is that the people of the country once known as the U.S.A don't seem to be aware that there are many other American countries, most of them incapable of so-called American usage, as they don't speak American.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Americans (those living in the U.S.) realize that their country is one of many on two continents that share the name America.

Also, I'd have to say that the majority of the world understands that the term American is merely a convention that typically stands for "from the U.S.". This convention is actually known as a demonym. This might be because the official name is the United States of America. Therefore a suitable adjective form would simply be American. Compare to Canadian for the Dominion of Canada, and Mexican for the United Mexican States.

Lastly, most people from the States understand that they speak English, not American. They are also aware that the British don't speak British, the Australians don't speak Australian, and that Canadians don't speak Canadian. Jokes about accents are common, but I doubt that anybody intelligent enough to crack them actually believes them.

Hot Topics / Re: Tainted Meats :(
« on: November 26, 2008, 03:32:44 am »
This refers to modern Inuit, who are a sickly and suicidal group compared to their pre-contact ancestors.
The model used is of the pre-contact Eskimos, who never cooked anything. I've lived in their land, and the only fuel in sight was the diesel, jet fuel and propane that came on the supply aircraft.

I thought Stefannson pointed out that they mostly ate raw, but did there share of cooking (seal fat), too. Regarding fuel, i thought the blubber and fat served these purposes?

Also, regarding Tyler's post early in the thread, Aajonus did point out that the bacteria were less of a concern than the environment they were in, but he was kind of lazy in siting that he got that from Antoine Bechamp, who many know as Pasteur's arch-rival. Actually, Bechamp's theory of disease is very interesting and the ongoing controversy of whether or not microscopic organisms are pleomorphic is too.

Personals / Re: I want to meet a real, live RAF'er!
« on: November 26, 2008, 03:18:04 am »
Thanks for the posts, guys. I'm also glad to get some feedback on body odor from a cooked vs. raw perspective.

So your entire (immediate) family eats raw, livingthelife? That's cool. My only support structure (besides this forum) is my girlfriend. She's okay with me eating "weird" stuff, but sometimes she can't watch, and she's pretty resistant to trying any of it. She likes her pasteurized chocolate milk and breads and what not.

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: November 25, 2008, 07:04:31 am »
Hey Squall,

Any update on your panicky symptoms when eating high amounts of fat? Is it still happening? Interested to know if you persevered with eating the same amounts of fat until the symptoms died away!!

Sorry its been so long since last posting.

I actually haven't eaten any large amounts of raw fat in quite some time. I've been pretty much sticking with the fat content in the ground chili meat I got from Slankers. I do notice, however, that I get similar symptoms from even cooked meals with high fat. It won't be until after the holidays that I'll get a good stretch of time to eat almost all raw with extra fat.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: description
« on: November 05, 2008, 07:32:07 am »
I'd like to share how the modern hunter gatherer Aeta survive while hunting wild boar, wild deer and wild fowl in their forest mountain.

Do the Aeta consume these raw. or are these foods cooked?

Hot Topics / Pemmican
« on: November 03, 2008, 11:09:17 am »
What's the verdict on pemmican ... if there is one?

Considering that the fat has to be rendered (cooked) and the meat jerked (which I guess isn't really cooking), is it something that RPD'ers can eat on a regular basis? Or is it something that should only be eaten during traveling? Or maybe is it something that should be avoided?

I like the idea of a hard, nutritious ration that keeps awhile. I've been thinking about ordering some of the pemmican with fruit in it from US Wellness meats. Tyler had recommended in my journal that I should get some raw carbs in my diet, which I agree with, but for some reason shopping at the local supermarket for berries seems to fail a lot for me. I either don't eat them quickly enough (before they mold) or I get caught up on the whole pesticides issue.

I don't plan on making it my only source of food, but it would come in mighty handy for breakfast and snacks at work. At home I can just have a decent sized fresh raw meal.

Here is a link to the page I was looking at for pemmican:

Specifically, I was looking at the Regular Beef Pemmican Pail. What do you guys think?

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: November 01, 2008, 06:08:07 am »
A panicky feeling sounds as though the adrenals are being overstretched - my advice is to go raw but add in plenty of  raw carbs until the problem goes away(not veggie-juice or liquid honey, however raw, I mean raw fruit and raw honeycomb)

But what about fat consumption? Reduce it, increase it, keep it steady? I have no problem dealing with panicky feelings from eating fat. I've experienced enough to know that they are self-limiting. I just don't want to do anything that could possibly worsen any pre-existing condition.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk