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 - JustAnotherExplorer

Pages: [1] 2
Welcoming Committee / Re: Zeruff's introduction
« on: November 10, 2008, 10:56:04 am »
11 lbs of ground beef is between 6688 (95% lean) and 14432 (75% lean) calories.  I would be very shocked if you are using anywhere near that many calories.  Keep in mind that as you eat larger quantities of ground beef you are increasing the protein just as much as the fat, keeping the same ratio.  Much of it is probably not being digested; some of it may be being converted to stored fat in your body. is a Hawaiian farm that claims to raise 100% grass fed beef.  You might want to contact them and see about purchasing suet or marrow bones, organs as well.  Barring that Slankers from Texas seems to have fairly reasonable rates for shipping out to the islands.
They sell suet for $1.68/lb and ship it to you for between $2.28 and $0.82 per pound, depending on how much you order.  You could get 65 lbs of suet delivered to you for about $165 (~1520 calories/dollar).  Mix the suet in with the ground beef or eat it on its own and you can bump your fat up that way.

Others have had mixed experiences, some positive, some negative and some neutral, with plant fats.  I imagine that you shouldn't have too much trouble getting ahold of avocados, coconuts or coconut oil.  These will all up your fat intake.  How they affect your body, your mileage will vary.  Egg yolks and Extra Virigin Olive Oil are also used by some with the same mix of results.

General Discussion / Re: raw vegetarians/vegans - allies or enemies?
« on: November 10, 2008, 05:19:31 am »
So when you said tasty dog you were just kidding?

No, I was not kidding, just making an assumption based on dog's presence in many other cuisines (the Koreans and Inuit were mentioned as an example).

General Discussion / Re: raw vegetarians/vegans - allies or enemies?
« on: November 09, 2008, 04:57:18 am »
I personally have never eaten a dog, but millions if not billions of our fellow humans have.

General Discussion / Re: raw vegetarians/vegans - allies or enemies?
« on: November 08, 2008, 06:35:01 am »
Plants may not fit our paradigm of what is intelligent or sentient, but they do seem to be incapable of suffering in the way that animals can, which does seem a worthwhile distinction (though I do leave open the possibility, unlikely as I think that it is, that plants do suffer and we just haven't been able to determine this or communicate it).  Also, there are plenty of examples of plants that require destruction in order to thrive and pass on to the next generation.  Fruits are an example, as are the regenerative nature of grasses that need to be grazed.  An even better example are the species that are dependent upon wildfires to burn them before they can release their seeds or have their landscape rejuvenated.

I absolutely see your point about the circle of life and I accept that intellectually 100%, but that doesn't make it easy for me to get rid of the part that wishes it were otherwise.  Of course, I don't spend much time or energy on these wishes, but that does not make them go away entirely.  Maybe it's just something hardwired into my biology or maybe it is acculturation, but I suspect that I will always have more sympathy for the death of the tasty, tasty dog, cow or chicken that could have experienced life and emotions for many, many more years then I will for the near catatonic carrot that was near the end of its life cycle when consumed anyway.

General Discussion / Re: raw vegetarians/vegans - allies or enemies?
« on: November 07, 2008, 08:25:03 pm »
I hear you about having to face reality and hitting your head against that wall, Edwin.  I find it very sad that we need to kill other creatures in order to consume the food that we need to properly thrive.  If I could truly create my own reality then I would be eating a cooked vegetarian diet with raw fruits, some raw veggies and plenty of dairy as those choices fit best with the way my taste buds have been cultured and how I'd like to care for the other intelligent life forms that we share this planet with.  However, I need to live in this world and don't get to pick and choose what my body needs.  Que sera, sera.

Health / Re: slipped disc
« on: November 07, 2008, 06:51:22 am »
Trigger point therapy can possibly provide some relief.  Trigger points are small points in the center of muscle fibers that bunch up tightly and can cause pain either locally or referred to other parts of the body.  If you have sensitive enough fingers then they can be felt in the muscle tissue as little bumps.  The way to self treat a trigger point is to massage across it with a short, 1-2 inch (3-6cm) stroke, 6-12 times at a pressure that you would consider about a 7 on a pain scale of 1-10.  Massage in one direction only and use a tool, if possible, to save your hands.

Trigger points may not be the cause of all your problems, but some have almost certainly been created by the stress and are contributing to the pain.

I'm not sure where the appropriate trigger points for your pain will be located but they're probably in either your back or your buttocks  The best resource that I've found for self treatment of trigger points is

Which may be available at your local library and can certainly be ordered at

Off Topic / Re: Magnets?
« on: November 07, 2008, 06:38:13 am »
I am convinced that the use of magnets for health purposes is 100% junk science.  To my knowledge there has never been a well designed double-blind trial where the relief provided by magnets has been any better than placebo.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: How many carbs do you need?
« on: November 07, 2008, 06:35:56 am »
AFAIK gluconeogenesis has nothing to do with the amount of ketones produced.  The end result of that process is glucose and you would need to be measuring your blood glucose levels to learn anything about that.  Take a look through Lex's well documented journal and you will see evidence of both his producing ketones at the same time as he is creating glucose from protein.

Lex produced many more ketones 80% fat routine than on his 65% fat routine.  It's impossible to estimate from the diet you've listed what the total amount of fat was that you consumed or what percent of your calories it was.  As I see it, it remains possible that you either a) are well adapted to using ketones for fuel and utilized all of the small amount that you created or b) consumed enough carbs that no ketones were created at all.  I realize that these are substantially similar to your options, but they do not mention gluconeogenesis.  I suspect, but by am no means certain, that you could discriminate between the two options by increasing your fat consumption while leaving the carb intake the same and keeping the protein content similar or slightly reduced.  If option A is accurate and you increase fat enough then you should see an increase in urinary ketones as more are created than you utilize.  If B is correct then you should not see any increase in ketones at all.

As I said, I'm not certain that the above scenarios accurately describe what would take place and why, but it is consistent with my current understanding of the biochemistry involved.

General Discussion / Re: does anyone eat the skin of the fish?
« on: November 06, 2008, 10:06:33 am »
Edwin, do you ever have concerns about eating the fecal matter contained in the fish's digestive tract?

Suggestion Box / Re: Please Help Test the Beyond Veg Debunked Page
« on: November 06, 2008, 06:12:22 am »
OK.  That shows up just fine for me.

Suggestion Box / Re: Please Help Test the Beyond Veg Debunked Page
« on: November 06, 2008, 04:39:54 am »
I'm running Firefox 3.03 on windows XP.  The lysine link is not double underlined for me and there are no graphics at all, except for the Raw Paleo Forum header at the very top.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: How many carbs do you need?
« on: November 06, 2008, 04:35:50 am »
It used to be thought that the brain ran exclusively on glucose, but Barry Groves claims that this study shows that assumption to be erroneous and that the brain is just a s capable of running on FFA's as any other cells.  I have not read the study myself.

Takenaka T, et al. Fatty acids as an energy source for the operation of axoplasmic transport. Brain Res 2003; 972: 38-43

Info / News Items / Announcements / Re: Blending Raw Organs
« on: November 05, 2008, 05:55:27 am »
Well, I tried the liver-lime-tomato drink but can't say that it went over too well.  When I first smelled it I almost gagged.  I managed to  drink about 1/5 of the glass, with some swallows going more smoothly than others, before I gave up.  A few sips almost tasted enjoyable, but those were by far the minority.  I guess it's just not something that I can handle at this point in my journey  :'(  I'll probably come back and try it again at some point in the future.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: How many carbs do you need?
« on: November 05, 2008, 05:39:47 am »
It could be that the body chooses the more efficient fuel, or it could be that the body wants to rid itself of the more damaging and troublesome fuel first.  For example, if the body is fed large amounts of fat, carbohydrates and alcohol it will process the alcohol for energy first, thus getting it out of the system.  It is conceivable, though not proven, that carbohydrates are processed second in that line because they are less damaging than alcohol but worse for the body than fats.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: description
« on: November 05, 2008, 05:34:31 am »
(Did you know that dates don't cause tooth decay?  Yes, the study concerned Middle Eastern school boys, iirc.)

I've never heard this before, though I have heard the exact opposite.  While I can't remember where I read it it, it was something where someone was discussing middle eastern diets and they mentioned that some children, unfortunately, would overeat on dates like they were candy at the expense of other foodstuffs and that they had the more conventionally expected results, ill health,  bad teeth.

General Discussion / Re: Pemmican: good fat/bad fat
« on: November 04, 2008, 03:31:10 am »
I've come across the claim, which I have no idea if it is accurate or not, that you can vacuum seal raw suet in .5 - 1kg packs and that it will stay fresh for months, even at tropical temperatures.

General Discussion / Re: Digestion Times For RAF
« on: November 03, 2008, 04:26:57 am »
The stated purpose of the "article was to determine the AGE content of commonly consumed foods and to evaluate the effects of various methods of food preparation on AGE production."  From the start this clearly leaves them the ability to present data on both heated and non-heated foods.  In table 1 they clearly provide the details on when some of the substances have been cooked and what method was used, e.g. beef broiledx 15 min, Egg yolk boiled, chicken breast broiledx15 min, tofu raw.  While they do specify some of the foods as raw the majority of the foods on the table are not given any qualifier or information identifying what heating was done to them.  This is the case with the olive oil and the butter.  It is also the case with the human breast milk.  No more information is given on the status of whether the breast milk was heated than is given about whether the olive oil was heated, yet you come to the conclusion that the milk was raw while the olive oil was not.  Is there information somewhere else that does describe a difference?  I went and looked for the tables 2.6 that they keep on their website but was unwilling to pay the $25 that they charge for 24 hrs access.  I never claimed that there would be little difference between raw beef and boiled beef, but as we are not given (in table 1, at least) the value for raw beef we have no way of saying, other than making an unfounded assumption or finding outside information, that the values for raw beef are anywhere near the same range as those for raw milk (assuming that the milk actually is raw).

I have been unable to find data for the AGE content of raw beef, but this study

gives data for raw and cooked skinless chicken breast.  While they don't use the same units of measurement they find that a raw breast has 692 AGE kilounits raw and 1011 AGE kilounits boiled, 5245 AGE kilounits broiled.  While it is an increase from raw to boiled it is only a 46% increase.  If we can extrapolate the percentages back to the values of Goldberg article and assume that the percentages for chicken are similar to those for beef (a big if, I know, but it seems reasonable to me as an approximation until better data is found) then the beef which has a value of 22 kU/g when boiled would have a measurement of about 15 kU/g when raw, far higher than the data given for the (possibly) raw milk.  I find it a safer comparison to just extrapolate the numbers from chicken to chicken.  To get from the broiled data in the chicken study (5245) to the broiled data in the Goldberg study (58) we divide by 90.  Using this same factor on the raw chicken data we get a hypothetical 11 kU/g of AGE's Goldbergs scale.  This is far, far higher than the data for the carbohydrate containing foods.  It's even higher then is present in the tuna that has been roasted for 40 minutes at 177C (6 kU/g).  Raw chicken has almost twice as many AGE's per gram than heavily overcooked tuna.

I do not question their conclusions that heat-increase is the most relevant factor in the increase of AGE's but as this study does not mention lightly cooked meats then we still know nothing about the relative levels of AGE content for rare meats or at what point the increase starts in earnest.

While it is possible, it is extremely unlikely as the food already is being damaged at 40 degrees, in terms of enzymes, so one would expect other kinds of damage to appear at the same time as well, albeit in much smaller amounts than if cooked at 120 degrees, say.

If the type of damage that causes the decrease in digestibility is a very similar chemical reaction to that which destroys the enzymes then you are correct that we should expect to see it appearing at about the same temperature.  However, if it is a different type of reaction then it is very reasonable to expect the amount of heat that is needed as a catalyst to be different.  As I know nothing about the type of reaction that takes place I prefer to not make any assumptions for which I have no supporting data.

General Discussion / Re: Digestion Times For RAF
« on: November 02, 2008, 06:10:28 am »
On the Secor/Wrangham python study I think that we'll have to just agree to disagree.  As I see it, I think that the study gives us a limited amount of information about python digestion times and the energy required and you think that it gives us no information at all.  Either way, I think that we can agree that the results are practically irrelevant to humans.

As for the Goldberg study on AGE formulation I contend that, like the other studies mentioned thus far, it does not actually tell us anything about meat that is cooked only to bleau or to rare.  To start, it does not give us a true control by not telling us how many AGE's are in raw beef.  It may be similar to the raw breast milk, but there is no law saying that it needs to be.  Second, while they state that they boiled the meat for 1 hour they do not tell us what the final internal temperature of the meat is.  We cannot duplicate the experiment ourselves, cooking meat for an hour and then measuring the temperature, because they do not tell us the mass of the beef, a factor that could have a significant impact on the final internal temperature.  Speaking just from limited experience, I have never had a pot roast (the closest thing to true boiled beef that I've ever consumed) that has not been cooked to well done.  The sample probably never made it all the way to 100C, but how close, who knows?

Just as there is no enzyme damage at 38C but there is at 40C it remains possible, based on the data presented so far, that there is no significant AGE formation or reduction in digestibility in food heated to (to pull hypothetical numbers out of a hat) 58C but that they do show up at 60C and start increasing rapidly after that.

The data on the fats I find a little more confusing.  Did they actually cook them at all, or are they just measuring them as purchased from the supermarket?  If the latter then the butter numbers probably tell us something quite interesting about pasteurization.  I'm also curious about the olive oil.  I wonder what type they used.  If they did not heat them at all then I would expect there to certainly be a difference between cold-pressed extra virgin and the heat extracted, second press Pure olive oil garbage.  If they did not heat the fats in any way themselves and they did use good quality fats (both assumptions that we can't confirm from this paper) then it actually tells us nothing about AV's claim that the best food raw is the worst cooked.   The AGE's might be endogenous to the fats themselves.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that destroying phytonutrients by cooking plant matter is deemed good by zero-carbers.  Since zero-carbers don't consume plant matter why would they have an opinion on whether or not cooking it is a good thing?  As for whether the creation of toxins is worse than the destruction of anti-nutrients I think that this would be dependent upon both the quantity of the substances created and destroyed and the relative effects that these substances have on the body.  Without knowing the levels of the various substances and their effects I don't think that we can say with certainty which method of ingestion is ultimately better.

Info / News Items / Announcements / Re: Blending Raw Organs
« on: November 01, 2008, 06:57:32 am »
Thanks, Michael.  I'll give this a try at some point.

General Discussion / Re: Digestion Times For RAF
« on: November 01, 2008, 06:51:05 am »
This might interest you, as it exposes flaws in The China Study conclusions:

Yes, I think that Masterjohn supports my contention perfectly, as it uses the data from the original monolith, Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties to disprove the distortions and lies that Campbell puts forth in his commercial book The China Study.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Exercise v. Diet
« on: November 01, 2008, 05:47:56 am »
I'm not sure which option to vote for, but I think that they are both very important to different aspects of health.

Off Topic / Re: story of stuff
« on: November 01, 2008, 05:44:58 am »
I have a few small quibbles with the information presented, the main one being that I don't think that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of us, but overall that was pretty awesome.

General Discussion / Re: Digestion Times For RAF
« on: November 01, 2008, 05:06:25 am »
T. Colin Campbell, whose name appears second on Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties is certainly the most well known figure associated with this study.  He is the one who's been interviewed concerning it and has been promoting it.  I think that we can agree that in doing so he has greatly distorted the findings of that large and comprehensive epidemiolgical paper.  I think that it is fair to criticize Campbell and his interpretations of the study, particularly that work of propaganda/fiction that he published as "The China Study" but I have come across no one who has impugned the data from or execution of the original study (other than the normal limitations of epidemiological research, of course, and that some of the questions were poorly worded).  The fact that he has been misusing and perverting the data to his own end does not mean that the original data is flawed.

I think that this is analogous to Wrangham.  We can accept the data of the python study without having to accept any of Wrangham's far-fetched conclusions.  It would be a career-killer for Stephen Secor, who has studied and published more about the digestion of pythons than anyone else, to publish research that could be so easily falsifiable by anyone else who is willing to do the experiment.  I do not claim that Wrangham set the conditions and that some junior scientist did the work.  As reported by Science and Health journalist Rachael Gorman,, Wrangham sought out Secor because he already had experience studying the evolutionary design of the digestive system.  Yes, the research found what Wrangham wanted it to find and he uses it to prop up his theories, but I don't think that that indicates the data to be erroneous any more than I think that the data actually supports his theory.  As I've said before, I find it very hard to believe that the snake data in isolation tells us anything meaningful about the human digestive tract.  I also don't think that this study tells us anything about the quality of the nutrition that the snake is absorbing.  It just tells us that the snake can absorb cooked food more quickly and with less energy than it can raw food.

This is a mere technicality. Here's another study which proves my point:-

The above is a comparison between raw meat and 3 types of cooking at various temperatures, 1 of which involved cooking at 66-75 degrees Celsius for a period. All 3 cooking-methods showed a decrease in nutritive value and a clear drop in digestibility of meats after heating:-

"By the criterion of growth promoted among young rats(table 3), quite parallele differences are deduced. The raw meat is superior to all the cooked products, since each gram of raw meat protein eaten produced 0.78+/- 0.7 gm greater gain(i rats) than did that auto-claved 1 hour, 0.17 +/- 0.6 more than the boiled and 0.14 +/- 0.06 more than that autoclaved 7 minutes.

I do not think that this study proves your point any more than the Oste one does.  The Morgan Kern study is a comparison of raw meat along with 3 samples cooked in different ways.  One sample was boiled until an internal temperature of 84C was reached.  The second was autoclaved at 15 pounds of pressure for 7 minutes, giving a temperature of 84C.  The last was autoclaved at 15lbs of pressure for 1 hour.  The authors did not measure the temperature of this sample, but admit that it probably exceeded 85C.  84C is equivilent to 183F and is far beyond well done.  At no time did the authors of this study examine lightly cooked meat.

The reference to a sample cooked from 66-77C is not from this study but is mentioned as the author discusses all previous studies done in this area of research.  This number came from the work of Jarawussa in '29.  Jarawussa's study found absolutely zero difference in biological value when comparing the raw substance with the cooked.  I say substance instead of meat because Jarawussa used a mixture of "100 gm. of meat, treated in one of the ways given above, with 40gm. of potatoes, 20 gm. of cabbage and 10 gm. of carrots."  Even if the Jarawussa study had only looked at meat and had come to a conclusion that the raw meat showed a difference in biological value it still wouldn't tell us anything about cooking meats to Rare (46-51C).  66C (151F) is considered medium rare by the USDA, but any chef in a kitchen will tell you that their numbers are wacky and that 66C is more Medium to Medium-Well.

The other aspect is that since enzymes start getting destroyed at c.40 degrees Celsius, digetibility of meat is reduced. Yes, I know, that pro-cooked-advocates deny the uses of enzymes in raw food, but given the above facts re digestibility of protein being reduced at only slightly higher temperatures, it's clear that they are quite wrong.

If by "the above facts re protein digestibility being reduced" you are referring to the Oste, Morgan and Jarawussa studies and not something else that I've overlooked then I hope that I have demonstrated that they do not tell us anything about what happens between, say, 40C and 60C.  The question about whether enzyme rich foods actually benefit us or if the enzymes are all broken down into basic amino acids in the stomach seems to be still up in the air.  It is still possible that the enzymes are deactivated at 40C but that there is no change in protein digestibility until 58C, to pick a random number.

The issue of the AGE's is more complicated and one where I will have to spend much more time reading through the references that you have provided before I feel that I'll be able to comment intelligently.

On phytonutrients and plants it seems that if too many cause harm and too few give no benefit then cooking which, depending on the method chosen and how it is executed, reduces but generally does not eliminate these compounds and which, according to Oste, makes the plants more digestible might be the preferred way to prepare and consume them.

Pages: [1] 2
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk