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 - aariel

Pages: [1] 2
General Discussion / Re: Salted meat and scurvy
« on: November 07, 2009, 10:22:30 am »
As to salted meat maybe it doesn't prevent scurvy as fresh raw meat does because the L-ascorbic acid is quite completely destroyed by oxidation during the long period it may be stored before being eaten (salt is a means to preserve)

In contrast L-ascorbic acid in sauerkraut has been shown to remain perfectly intact because of the anaerobic preservation conditions.

Hmm. I think you may be onto something. AA is added to many foods as a sacrificial substance.

However, recent studies show that we can converted oxidized AA (L-DHA) back into AA. I guess I don't know enough about AA chemistry to know if AA oxidizes into L-DHA exclusively or predominately.

General Discussion / Re: Salted meat and scurvy
« on: November 07, 2009, 10:15:53 am »
I can't give a url either, but read years ago that sauerkraut has more vitamins and enzymes than raw cabbage.

From the little digging I just did, it looks like bacteria can be used industrially to make ascorbic acid. So I can only assume that there are natural bacteria that do the same:

I would like to see a study that investigated this specific question.

1. Cut a cabbage in half
2. Test one half raw for AA
3. Ferment the other half, then test it for AA

General Discussion / Re: Salted meat and scurvy
« on: November 06, 2009, 06:28:21 pm »
As far as I know one way James Cook and other sailors prevented their crews from getting scurvy was embarking barrels of sauerkraut which is lacto-fermented cabbage that contains traditionally only a tiny amount of seasalt typically about 0.5%.

Sauerkraut has vitamin C. I suspect the lacto-fermentation produces more vitamin C than is in the raw cabbage.

General Discussion / Re: Salted meat and scurvy
« on: November 04, 2009, 12:23:56 pm »
I think salt is the culprit there.
Salt causes the body to be wasteful of its vitamins and minerals.
Aajonus bashed salt in his last interview at

I personally do not add salt in my diet.  I find I am more efficient with my food and drink without salt.

Plus "salted meats" is of course less nutritious than fresh raw meat.

How does salt cause the body to be wasteful of vitamins and minerals?

Many wild animals will walk a long way to get salt so it's not like salt is a uniquely human, degenerate behavior.

What's interesting about humans, is that salt doesn't appear to be a nutrient. Or at least we've never been able to identify a salt deficiency disease.
That being said, sodium and chloride are critical nutrients and without them we suffer a rapid death. But almost all food has enough sodium and/or chloride to meet this need, thus no need for salt.

Stefannson wrote that the Eskimos he studied considered salt to be an addictive substance like tobacco. White people were addicted to salt, Eskimos were addicted to tobacco.

General Discussion / Re: Becoming More Mainstream - Alicia Silverstone
« on: November 04, 2009, 12:22:35 pm »
I've noticed that grain foods seem to be a substitute for meat. They have the same "mouth-feel," the same satiation (though short-lived), they are even dressed the same (with fat and salt).

Weren't the first agrarians primarily grain farmers? I remember that one of the oldest agrarian archaeological sites ever discovered contained a granary (9500BC, in Jordan).

I've always thought primitive grain farming must have been incredibly labor-intensive. I've always wondered why that took hold and spawned a cultural (and biological) revolution. It seems to me that it would have been much easier and nourishing (rewarding) to "specialize" in animals when the time came to settle down.

In the UK, they've found evidence of fencing for animal herding that dates back 30,000 years. I suspect that animal agriculture occurred before grain agriculture did. This makes sense to me because the practice of following wild herds as they migrate was probably the first activity we did as hunters. Driving animals during the hunt is another pre-herding behavior. Eventually someone figured out that if you build a simple fencing system and herd animals into it, that they are thus captive and then it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

General Discussion / Re: Pastured poultry
« on: November 04, 2009, 10:20:21 am »
This thread has some pretty interesting points:

Some people do raise chickens without feeding grains. But that doesn't mean the chickens aren't foraging for grain.
Chickens will use their feet to bend grass down and peck at the seed head.

After all wheat, rye, oats, barley and corn are all grasses and their seeds are the grain.

General Discussion / Re: Pastured poultry
« on: November 04, 2009, 04:03:57 am »
I have yet to find a genuine source of UK-based 100% pastured fowl. Almost all fowl in the UK is raised on a 100% grain-filled diet, with a few, like some geese, raised partially on a grass-fed diet.  It's always explained that, in order to lay enough eggs per season, even the geese must be fed some  grains.

Yeah here in Canada, there are no 100% pastured fowl.

I've read the same thing about egg production. But you have to ask, how would they survive in the wild without us to food them?

Perhaps the answer is migration, at least for ducks and geese. The wild one migrate to warmer climates where food is available.
I think chickens are a tropical animal naturally? Or at least I don't think they would migrate.

General Discussion / Re: Becoming More Mainstream - Alicia Silverstone
« on: November 04, 2009, 03:59:02 am »
I thought Alicia was the one who wrote the diet book about not eating anything with a face?

In "The Omnivore's Dilemma" Pollan makes the point very clearly that the current system of agriculture we have is a dead end.

Each acre of corn and soybeans requires about a barrel of oil to produce (and I bushel of topsoil). And this doesn't count the natural gas needed to make fertilizer.

Once we hit peak oil (permanent, protracted price rises) grain based food prices will go through the roof. When this happens, there will have to be a complete overhaul of our agricultural system. My guess is that meat production will go back on pasture as the grain will have to be diverted entirely to feed people. Meat may end up cheaper than grain!

Natural gas will be diverted to fuel use which would mean that fixing nitrogen will have to go back to bacteria and away from natural gas. But this will reduce the total amount of nitrogen that can be fixed by a wide margin.

I personally believe that we have always lived with a perpetual meat shortage. I believe a major reason we invented agriculture was to increase our meat supply. During the first half of the 19th century, there was a protracted meat shortage in the US that really never abated until after WWII.

Even today we still live with a sever meat shortage in the context that if everyone tried to eat nothing but meat, we wouldn't even come close to having enough.

Biology 101 is that an animal's population will rise to meet the available food supply. So the more food we produce to "feed the world", the bigger the world gets. The ethical thing is to use family planning to try and have people voluntarily reduce/control population, but so far that hasn't been working out. High food prices may end up being more effective.

General Discussion / Salted meat and scurvy
« on: November 04, 2009, 03:31:40 am »
In FOTL, Stefansson writes that salted meat, unlike fresh, raw meat doesn't prevent scurvy.

Raw meat could cure/prevent scurvy by any of the following: ascorbic acid, L-DHA or hydroxlysine/hydroxyproline, displacing carb calories or some combination.
I know that ascorbic acid is destroyed by heat but I don't know what salt does to it.
I don't know much about L-DHA as the discovery of our ability to recycle L-DHA back into ascorbic acid was only recently discovered.
Also not sure about the effect of heat or salt on hydroxylysine/hydroxyproline.

Anyone have an idea why salted meat wouldn't cure/prevent scurvy?

General Discussion / Pastured poultry
« on: November 04, 2009, 03:12:21 am »
Anyone know anything about raising pastured chickens, ducks and geese?

Virtually all the information out there is the same and insists that poultry needs grain.
I'm a bit skeptical, although I'm not a farmer or an animal physiologist. I'm curious if
the notion that poultry need grain is based on the assumption that you want to reach
specific growth rates.

In nature, I can't imagine that foul would get much grain. Grass and insects would be the
two most common food sources. In the wild, plant seeds (grain) is only available for about 1/4 of the year--if that.

I imagine you could raise foul on pasture with no supplemental feeding, but the growth rate would
definitely be slower. There would also have to be enough insect life to meet their protein requirements.
Joel Salatin uses fly larvae in cow pats as protein source so an integrated operation would be better
than a monocrop of just chickens let's say.

The other issue is genetics. All the chicks you'd buy at a hatchery are breed to gain on grain. A farmer I
buy from had to import beefs from NZ just to get genetics that would do well on grass.

General Discussion / Re: Cordain, hero or heretic?
« on: October 08, 2009, 06:20:49 am »
It's perfectly true that scientists are sometimes studying just  processed meats. But if you check, many studies focus also on less processed meats, albeit mostly grainfed meats, and they show similiar, if slightly reduced results. Another point is that those studies focus specifically on the molecules created by the cooking process, such as advanced glycation end products, hetertocyclic amines. These molecules have been shown,in isolation to have extremely harmful effects - cooked grassfed meats also have these harmful molecules, no matter how full of healthier nutrients they are(and many such nutrients (eg:- omega 3)are significantly damaged by cooking, anyway). So, in some ways it would be much healthier to eat raw grainfed meat than to eat cooked, grassfed meats, as that would involve a dramatic drop in the intake of heat-created toxins.

The trouble is that Taubes seems to be just a self-publicist author, not a serious food-scientist. And many criticise his own reviews of studies.

Taubes is a science journalist, not a scientist. Which is a rather rare breed since you have to have the technical chops to understand the science in great detail, but also have the skills of a journalist to tease out what's relevant and write about it in a way that is accessible. GCBC was written for professionals. He's working a more mainstream version that's more accessible.

From my observations most of the critiques against Taubes are pretty uniformed (i.e. they haven't read his book, or they did and didn't understand it or couldn't face the stagerring truth that their entire career is baseless) and typify the "circle the wagons" mentality that is common in academia whenever anyone comes along and points out that the proverbial emporer has no clothes on. You can certainly find bits and pieces to quibble over in GCBC, but the general thesis is spot on--they're not asking the right questions in most nutrition studies related to obesity or chronic disease. The classic example is a high-fat vs. low-fat diet. There have been no large scale, controlled studies to compare the two--so we don't know which is in fact better at reducing chronic disease or extending life expectancy. The first such trial was ended after the initial round because the preliminary data was so overwhelmingly against a low fat diet and they'd already committed to low fat.

Have you read GCBC?

Hot Topics / Re: The Avg Lifespan / Life Expectancy Canard
« on: October 08, 2009, 06:05:03 am »
Toxins in "overcooked" food is a mainstream idea, yes. But not yet the idea that homo sapiens should abandon cooking altogether. I wish i were mistaken but i don't think mainstream science is about to demonstrate that raw is a key concept in nutrition. A few years ago, i had some e-mails exchanged with Vlassara where i suggested her to compare rodents on a really natural raw diet and on the usual commercially available processed chows rather than on more or less heated chows (as her group usually does to change the amount of ingested dietary AGEs) since one might expect even much more striking differences between the really "raw" and the "cooked" mice. Apparently the suggestion met little interest and i'm afraid that such a basic experiment is neither underway nor even planned anywhere.

Up to now, Vlassara, cautiously, just warns against ingestion of fried, broiled etc foods and promotes steaming and boiling instead.


This is yet another example I've been talking about for quite some time. Sure the control group will set the baseline of good or poor health and the test group can then reflect difference or not based on the study design. But when you are trying to study health, it seems crazy not to feed the control an entirely natural, organic diet. So for rats and mice it would be raw food, not highly processed kibble. I wish someone would publish the study about feeding two groups of rats Corn Flakes or the box the Corn Flakes came in and demonstrate the the box is healthier than the Corn Flakes. That would really blow some minds (assuming it's repeatable)

Hot Topics / Re: The Avg Lifespan / Life Expectancy Canard
« on: October 07, 2009, 01:51:32 pm »
Thanks for clearing that up.

I personally think life expectancy isn't much of a good indication of health. It's quite a mystery to me, looking at various people and seeing when they die or how long they live. My grandfather is 90, barely eats anything, and what he does eat is milkshakes, Chinese food (noodles), pasteurized juices and fruits. NO MEAT. He cannot eat hardly any meat because he has this problem with his throat closing up on him. He is stressed out and angry often because he owns a business and still goes there every day to run it, but isn't a good business owner. He gets no exercise and hasn't for decades. He gets almost no sun, and as far as fresh food I think it's almost nothing, occasionally some fresh fruit like grapefruit. Sometimes my mom makes him cooked eggs (grocery store eggs, nothing to write home about) and toast.

What I'm saying is that he is doing everything wrong in terms of what most on this forum, including most in mainstream health, thinks is wrong for longevity. Yet he's still alive, and actually gets up every day (7 days a week) to do stuff. Meanwhile plenty of people on paleo diets, or raw paleo diets (tribes people) die way earlier.

In fact I have yet to meet an old person who knows anything about paleo nutrition in my life. I remember one old person who talks about healthy diet, but her idea of that is stuff like diet soda. She's in her 80's.

Yeah it's like the cliche about the 100 year old woman. When asked why she lived so long, she says it's the cigar and shot of whiskey she has everyday. In general, individual differences are greater than groups differences. So I think longevity varies greatly from one person to another.  Also keep in mind that life expectancy is controlled by some odd factors, like infant mortality. Japan has one of the highest group life expectancies, but when you look at the data most of the effect is because they have one of the lowest infant mortality rates.

General Discussion / Re: Cordain, hero or heretic?
« on: October 07, 2009, 01:36:29 pm »

I agree that there is a large body of studies investigating the dangers of chemicals produced by cooking and that there is definitely something going on in the cooking process.

I've looked at a lot of these studies and many others related to meat consumption and cancer. And virtually all of them are very poorly designed.
In support of your basic point, many study cooked meat and conclude that meat is bad when in fact another body of research seems to indicate that it's the cooking, not the meat.

But there are many more examples of similar lack of controls or unjustifiable conclusions.
The meat they use for testing is usually conventionally raised, grain fed meat.
The grain is often GMO and contaminated with numerous pesticides, the animals are given pesticides for parasite control and non-therapeutic antibiotics and growth hormones, and raised under near constant stress and given synthetic vitamins and chlorinated/fluoridated water and on and on the list of novel molecules or industrial cultural practices goes. Any one of these could have a statistically significant influence in the study outcome, but almost none of these factors are controlled. And many of these novel molecules are known carcinogens. So while they are looking for meat to be the cause of cancer, they are overlooking literally hundreds of common synthetic molecules, many of which are know to be carcinogens. And there are almost no studies looking at the cumulative effect of all these molecules.

So at the end of the day I discount most of these "meat is bad" studies since they have no clue what the hell they are actually studying. Instead they are just engaged in a semi-religous activity, not hard science. Taubes talks about this at great lengths in "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

And I completely agree with you when you say, "The problem is the alternative is even worse. "

So here we are in the middle.
On the one side we have pseudo-scientific people occasionally using science to bolster a point and on the other we have our best and brightest, mostly well intentioned people who are frequently engaged in intellectual facism and self-deception of the highest order. If you haven't already checked out the "How to Think About Science" series on CBC radio, you really should invest the time--you won't be disappointed.

It's not the first time I find myself stuck in no-mans land. It's like buying food. The grocery store is a train wreck, but the "health food" store is no better with all vegan and soy crap. I end up getting my food directly from farmers. I just got 15lbs. of cavity fat from a 100% pastured beef--for free! I had to go to the slaughter house to get it, but that's a small price to pay for some good quality fat.



General Discussion / Re: Cordain, hero or heretic?
« on: October 07, 2009, 01:05:08 pm »
I've been trashed too many times in the past by Fallon/Enig/Price supporters to want to comment on Cordain vs. Fallon, but I will say that I disagree with both on some things and agree with both on other things and I learned something from both, so why not check them both out (for both there are free Youtube videos, articles and interviews online that you can access before you decide what if any book to buy)? Surely it's better to get a variety of perspectives on a topic as important as nutrition and health.

Yeah I take the same basic approach. In my experience I've never been able to find a person or organization that didn't have a significant load of shit falling out of their mouths now and again. I couldn't even tell you right now which ideas I hold to be true that are actually false. (no one can)

I've been trying to collect as much information as possible and frequently see interesting patterns, confirmations, contradictions, etc.

General Discussion / Re: Cordain, hero or heretic?
« on: October 06, 2009, 09:41:06 am »
This is gold--thanks Tyler.

While I agree with most of his "I'm a scientist, she's not" responses. It is interesting that he contradicts himself by first dismissing her critique because she is not a "scientist", but then later says the source of  an ideal shouldn't matter, only it's merit.

While his analysis of fatty acids in wild animals is interesting. I think it misses the point. It's almost like he thinks hunters hunted the same thing every day of the year--like how we now shop at the grocery store. There are numerous accounts of hunters being highly selective of which species, which members of a species, what time of year and even which body parts they ate. They had a very deep understanding of exactly which tissues they wanted for very specific purposes of health. Something that Cordain isn't even attempting to characterize with his over simplified, reductionist scientific method. It was very common for hunters to go after very specific animals during a season, harvest many of a specific type (alpha males) and then cache up that food for later use. So I think the entire exercise of trying to deduce the lipid profile of a Paleo diet is a nearly futile effort. Although I do agree that there is a huge difference in the lipid profiles of grain fed meat vs. pastured meat vs wild game.

The other major problem with his whole response is that he totally seems to have missed the main point of the criticism.  He freely admits in his response that he is doing exactly what he is being criticized for--that is, trying to distort a Paleo diet to fit within the narrow confines of conventional nutritional theories. He never questions the notion that a high fat diet is bad, or that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad. I happen to think these are all fine and have little to do with chronic disease. Unfortunately the majority of nutrition and medical researchers don't agree with me. Too bad for them reality isn't based on democracy. Conscensus is frequently wrong--just look at the history of mercury as medicine, female hysteria cures, Vioxx, the list is endless. Of course there are consensus ideas that are true, but the trick is trying spot the impostors at any given moment in time.

The other major problem he has is that his faith in peer reviewed journals is not balanced. It's true that peer-reviewed journals are "where the action is" in most fields. But the peer-review process has a dark side. It's the process by which descent is suppressed and industry bias plays out. Peer-reviewed journals are not a market place of ideas. They are mostly intellectual propaganda. I am reminded of Max Plank's quote:

"An important scientific innovation rarely
makes its way by gradually winning over and
converting its opponents. What does happen
is that its opponents gradually die out and that
the growing generation is familiar with the
idea from the beginning. "

So in many ways peer-reviewed journals are where wrong theories go to die.

General Discussion / Re: High meat under the microscope
« on: October 06, 2009, 09:07:17 am »
I agree with William--there is no fame or fortune to be made studying high-meat. This is a very big problem right now in science.
Public funding for science has turned into an business subsidy program. There is no money to be made protecting us, so almost no research gets done to prove stuff is unsafe or useless.
Instead most of the research is skewed by the funding source and we now have a body of science that is heavily out of step with reality.

General Discussion / Re: High meat under the microscope
« on: October 05, 2009, 11:04:06 pm »
There are many aerobic pathogenic bacteria and molds. So aeration in and of itself will have no suppressive effect on those types of pathogens.

I was looking for a more technical answer along these lines:

In lacto-fermentation, salt can be used to suppress pathogens until the pH drops low enough from lactic acid production.
Another method is to add a large amount of inoculant and lactic acid to help start at a lower pH, like fresh liquid whey or liquid from a mature ferment.
A basic principle of lacto fermentation is that the lactic acid producing bacteria will eventually out compete the pathogens and produce
enough lactic acid to lower the pH to the point that pathogens cannot survive.

I'm getting the impression that high meat production is a bit of a mystery. Although I can find tons of research on food spoilage and related
pathogenic activity.

I believe one person's high meat is another persons spoiled meat, correct? It's really just a matter of perspective.

General Discussion / High meat under the microscope
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:50:57 pm »
So is there a detailed chemical and biological analysis of what exactly is going on in high meat?
If not, how about a detailed theory?

So for example, I've read that aerobic bacteria are favored, but which species? What exactly is the end product sought?

What yeasts or other fungi are involved? What are their end products?

What role do the anaerobic bacteria in the meat play? Does high meat have higher lactic acid levels than fresh meat?

What principles of high meat production help to ensure that if the meat is contaminated that the pathogens won't proliferate and sicken you?

Hot Topics / Re: The Avg Lifespan / Life Expectancy Canard
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:07:53 pm »
I agree with general principle of this post.

And I'd like to add that even if a paleo diet resulted in slightly lower life expectancy,
I believe that life would be of far higher quality.
I think most people would rather live to 75 and be free of cavities, not need braces,
never break a bone or have a hip replacement or have to inject insulin than
live to 85 and have to deal with all these problems of physical degeneration.

General Discussion / Re: Cordain, hero or heretic?
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:00:59 pm »
Here is a review of the book from Sally Fallon--granted she is more neolithic than paleo, but she does make many good points.

As for the leanness in grass fed animals...

From talking to a grass-based farmer, there are two major challenges. First, the genetics for most meat animals have been selected for grain fattening for so long that when you put that kind of animal on 100% pasture it's not going to fatten well. He even went so far as to import some Devon beefs from NZ because they have been breeding for a long time on nothing but pasture. All pasture dairy farmers do the same thing for the same reason--NZ has the best genetics for an all pasture diet.

The other problem, especially for beef, is that mad cow has the meat inspectors all paranoid and they have regulations that force slaughter at a young age. Here in Ontario it's 30 mo. max. Traditionally, the older the beef, the better the quality, the higher the fat content and the higher price at market. 5 year old beef is a premium product in many markets across the world. In the past, hunters would have sought out the older males because of their larger stores of fat. The regulations also force the carcass temperature down too soon for hardly any of the natural breakdown process to occur. Even during the first few hours after death, there is significant chemistry going on to break down tissues that would make the meat more tender.

General Discussion / Cordain, hero or heretic?
« on: October 04, 2009, 10:34:50 am »
What's this groups POV on Cordain's paleo diet work?

I searched for  "Cordain" and got zero hits, which seemed odd.

Wai Dieters / Re: Fructose
« on: October 04, 2009, 10:27:40 am »
Those studies that you talk about use very high levels of fructose (at least from all of the ones I have read). All of the studies that I have read also use isolated, unnatural, refined/crystalline fructose, which IS actually different than natural fruit sugar. In fact, fruit sugar, in it's natural form, should really be called laevulose (NOT fructose), where it is bound to other chemical compounds, canceling out any 'negative' qualities. When you isolate a chemical outside of it's natural biochemical sequence, it then becomes more like a drug, not a food, to the human body because the dependent qualities are lost. For example, we all know that benzoylmethylecgonine (cocaine) is a highly addictive substance. But why? Benzoylmethylecgonine is the alkaloid that is derived from coca leaves. This alkaloid is what makes the drug highly addictive. However, in the coca plant itself, this alkaloid is in it's natural state, where the addictive qualities are canceled out by other chemical compounds, therefore it is not recognized by your body as a drug like cocaine is. Go ahead, chew on some coca leaves. It's like drinking coffee and may southern American countries do that legally. It's nothing like loading up on cocaine. This is one of the most overlooked subjects in biochemistry and nutrition. People forget that not all harmful isolated chemicals are harmful in their original form of natural biochemical sequence. So, to say that laevulose (fruit sugar) is the same exact thing as highly refined, isolated, crystalline fructose would be wrong. That would be like saying cocaine is the same thing as coca or that heroine is the same thing as those poppy-seeds on top of that bagel in the market. Also, fruit is not the major source of fructose (laevulose) in the normal diet. Most people don't get much of it in it's natural form. In fact, only certain fruits are high in laevulose, while others are relatively low. Here is a list of foods that contain fructose (natural and refined), in descending order:

• High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
• Table Sugar, which is a 50:50 combination of glucose and fructose
• Brown Sugar
• Maple Sugar
• Cane Sugar
• Molasses
• Honey
• Concentrated Fruit Juice
• Fruits
• Vegetables

As you can see, fruits and vegetables are at the very bottom. Now factor in the simple fact that this is laevulose, not refined, isolated, crystalline fructose. Completely different than HFCS in both quantity and biochemical sequence. There is also another important fact that the "all sugar is created equal" crowed misses: Unlike glucose, laevulose is an insulin-independent monosachharide. In a healthy person, fruit does not spike blood sugar violently, like table sugar does. So, in other words, stay away from refined, man-made fructose, but fruit in it's natural form is fine. I think one of the most important thing some raw paleo/meat eaters often overlook is the need for antioxidants in todays environment.

I agree that reductionist principles in science often result in studies that have no relevancy in the real world. I've never seen a study comparing crystalline fructose with a diet containing an equivalent amount of bound fructose in the form of whole fruit--not that I've done an exhaustive search of the literature.

Info / News Items / Announcements / Re: Dairy Dangers
« on: October 01, 2009, 11:25:47 pm »
I'm afraid the above statement is simply wrong. Raw milk contains many very harmful aspects that are also present in pasteurised milk. Examples of this include the opioids in raw and pasteurised milk(which foul up the human hormonal system), the excess calcium(which can lead to issues such as osteoporosis or magensium-deficiency, and then there's the casein and lactose issues. While some rawists have desperately claimed that lactose/casein are only an issue with pasteurised dairy, many, many rawists would beg to differ, given their own very negative experience re dairy.

Raw and pasteurized milk do share many common characteristics like the ones you mention. But they also have many differences like probiotic bacteria, vitamin C and multiple factors that make raw milk hostile to pathogenic bacteria. All these factors are reduced or destroyed by pasteurization.

My main point though is that the entire field of dairy studies is fraught with difficulties from bias, to asking the wrong questions, not asking the right questions, and numerous poorly designed studies that make unwarranted conclusions about superficially related topics that don't hold up under even the simplest of scrutiny.

I'm not trying to advocate consumption of dairy either, so please don't interpret my comments in this way. I'm just pointing out that most discussions of dairy are complicated by all the above problems.

I think it's pretty obvious that dairy is a novel food and that many people can't tolerate it at all or it does not serve them well. Milk sales have been falling every year for the past 20 years even though the prices have been going down--that's a pretty clear indication that something is wrong with milk (at least industrial milk).

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Stefansson's book online
« on: October 01, 2009, 12:37:08 pm »
As I recall from my reading of TFOTL, Stefansson's younger wife tempted him with sweets and that was the "cause" of his early strokes.
Also, he did eat raw when he lived with the Eskimos, but when he was back in the states, he ate cooked food. I'm re-reading the book now so I'll keep this thread in mind as I go.

Pages: [1] 2
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk