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 / Re: MBTI
« on: September 21, 2008, 01:46:25 am »
I was ENFJ (11-50-12-11).

They put me in the same category as Bill Clinton, Mickhail Gorbachev, and Ralph Nader. Yuck ... politicians. I hate politicians.

General Discussion / To Chew or not to Chew
« on: September 21, 2008, 12:14:12 am »
I've been reading a lot here about how to eat raw meats and organs, and it seems that the consensus is to just 'bolt' them. From what I've gathered, bolting is a quick process in which food (raw meat) is swallowed with a gulp of water. It seems that the dominant rationale behind this is that our carnivore cousins (wolves, kitties, etc.) do little actual chewing, relying on their teeth to merely rend meat from a carcass and basically swallowing the chunk whole. Therefore, since they are carnivores and we are also carnivores, we should emulate the wolf, giant cat, bear, etc. (Yes, I know bears are omnivores)

But I have some issues with this logic. I will use the wolf as my example carnivore where needed, mainly because it is easy to spell. Mind you that wolf can be substituted for any similar carnivore:

1. Wolves and humans 'bolt' their food differently according to the above paradigm. Whereas a wolf simply tears some flesh from a carcass, cuts it up a little with its teeth, and then swallows it, a human must rely on a glass of water to assist, as well as a knife. Early paleo hunters most likely had knives. Indeed tools might have figured heavily into our evolution by some anthropologist's accounts*. However, its unlikely that they had glasses of water with them. Also unlikely is that they only killed near bodies of water. I find it further unlikely that they would use the blood as a substitute for water that might help them bolt their food down whole, owing again to the fact that they would have had no vessel in which to collect enough blood for drinking.

2. We have teeth and they must've been used for something. In the above point I failed to point out (intentionally) that humans could just opt to swallow their food whole without any liquid assistance. We do (and did) indeed have that option. However, anyone who has tried to swallow anything larger than a small marble realizes how painful and terrifying getting food lodged in your throat can be. It can take minutes to hours before the blockage clears. This leaves our paleo hunter with the option of either chewing his food, or using a flint knife to chop it into tiny chunks that he and his fellow hunters can then swallow whole. Paleo tools of anatomically-modern humans are praised by many anthropologists as being of surprising quality, but I doubt they came as near to the level of precision and efficiency as a sharp, modern fillet knife. Even using the latter on a slab of liver is time consuming owing mainly to the slimy, almost amorphous nature of the organ. It would seem unlikely, then, that our ancestors, using crude tools, would take such pains as to sit down and meticulously cut the prized organs into pieces tiny enough to be swallowed by himself and his mates without any complications to swallowing.

3. Aajonus has pointed out that the ptyalin in human saliva will interfere with meat digestion and recommends chewing as little as possible. Many here also recommend this. But ptyalin is an amylase, and an amylase's job is to begin the conversion of starch into sugar. Ptyalin's job specifically is to accomplish this with the chewing process. Many people (non-RPD) would undoubtedly point to the presence of amylase in saliva as prima facie evidence that man is meant to eat starchy vegetables. Else, they would argue, why would we have this adaptation if it served no use? Its a good argument. Indeed the presence of ptyalin in saliva appears to be a digestive adaptation to eating something starchy, on the basis that the resultant sugars are needed by some metabolic processes. However, it falls short in assuming that only starchy veggies have starch, which many here know to be false, as certain organs (liver) are relatively high in glycogen, an animal starch. The original claim that ptyalin interferes with protein digestion seems rather odd, considering that its job is starch digestion.

Because of the above points, I have to call into question the primacy of bolting our food. I don't necessarily think that its a wrong practice, and it probably does wonders for many early RPD'ers who have trouble chewing raw organs, but I cannot agree that its a natural practice; that is to say: I don't think our ancestors practiced this for any length of time frequently, and therefore nature had no opportunity to specifically select for this practice in our evolution.

Also, the implications of the theory of bolting over chewing is that the teeth are useless, or almost so. They are either used solely for the chewing of the occasional tuber or wild fruit, or not at all, and are therefore a vestigial organ which refuses to go away. My guess is that more people would believe that the teeth have some use, however limited, rather than believing that they are as useless as the appendix to modern physiologists. And there is some good reason to believe that mankind may have evolved utilizing two different eating styles: bolting meat, and chewing vegetation. However, I find it unlikely that mankind, when initially on the threshold of transitioning from roaming frugivores to hunter-gathering omnivores (and possibly carnivores), found that they needed to invent an entirely new style of eating to accompany their new food source. Those small fruit-eating distant ancestors of ours were accustomed to chewing their primary diet: wild fruits and whatever other nutrient-rich vegetation they ate. When starting to eat other types of food it would be somewhat of a logical fallacy on our part to conclude that all of a sudden, they decided to try a completely radical new form of eating: namely, swallowing without chewing. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they did not just chew the new food the same as the old. Furthermore, if this worked for them, then there is no logical reason to believe that at any point from then forward that all of a sudden they decided that chewing was bad and that swallowing whole was better.

I realize that this is a long post, but the issue of chewing or bolting kinda bothers me. I'm just starting to consume raw liver, and while I can chew it, I find that bolting is easier. However, I'm not completely sold on the idea that it is what I should be doing. Its just easier to do. But consider what could happen: if bolting is not the right way to digest, and it does cause some small problems, then many new RPD-ers would find themselves continually stuck in a rut owing to their dependence on a handicap: i.e., bolting over chewing because its easier and doesn't taste nearly as bad. Then again, it could be the proper way to go, or it just might be one of those things that doesn't matter.

Naturally, I'd like to hear what you guys think.

* I recall a theory stating that our initial evolutionary jump was fueled by the use of tools to liberate marrow and brains from scavenged carcasses. The idea was that large predators rarely had access to these organs, so once everything else was gone, the carcass was left for the scavengers. Proto-human homonids exploited this bounty by chiseling through bone to get ahold of fatty, nutrient-rich marrow and brain tissue.

Off Topic / Re: True or False
« on: September 20, 2008, 11:36:54 am »
False. I usually go 3 - 5 over, but not too much more than that because they put cameras all over the streets out here.

The person below me has read Joseph Heller's Catch-22.

General Discussion / Re: The Definition of Intermittent Fasting (IF)
« on: September 20, 2008, 06:50:27 am »
Here's an article that talks about the benefits of IF:

... and here's a piece that I found quite compelling:

Beyond insulin sensitivity, it appears that caloric restriction and intermittent fasting may “turn on” certain genes that repair specific tissues that would not otherwise be repaired in times of surplus. One could surmise that this adaptation serves to allow certain cells to live longer (as repaired cells) during famine since it’s energetically less expensive to repair a cell than to divide and create a new one. That might help explain some of the extended longevity seen in animal studies using caloric restriction and/or intermittent fasting (read about here, here, and here). Intermittent fasting has also been shown to reduce spontaneous cancers in animal studies, which could be due to a decrease in oxidative damage or an increase in immune response.

General Discussion / The Definition of Intermittent Fasting (IF)
« on: September 20, 2008, 01:50:50 am »
I'm guessing its not eating for around 24 hours, like just eating a single meal per day, every day?

I'm having trouble finding an exact definition on the net. Most sites (that I can access--I'm at work) talk about the advantages, disadvantages, etc. without actually saying what it is.

General Discussion / Re: Ultimate Longevity Anti-Aging Diet
« on: September 19, 2008, 09:27:21 pm »
I come from a biology background which heavily emphasizes genetics these days and I find it very suspect and probably just propaganda to pacify people into accepting poor health and eventually purchasing drugs and other therapies and counseling based on the fraudulent "genetics controls everything" hypothesis.

I second this. I have always felt that the genetic theory of disease was ridiculous. I'm amazed at times with the passivity of some people who might be told a single time by a single doctor that they have bad genes. So they go and get a dozen prescriptions. I almost wonder if genes or disease doesn't even matter to them so much as the fact that they get to take some legal drugs or some such. I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only person who feels this way about the genetic theory of disease!

Off Topic / Re: my cat is missing
« on: September 19, 2008, 07:28:37 am »

I'm glad you found your cat. I have three, and I get distraught if even one of them gets sick. I've lost cats before, and it sucks. I bet you're pretty happy at the moment!

Welcoming Committee / Re: solid foundation
« on: September 19, 2008, 07:23:36 am »
No way!  So, the sole cause of obesity is over consumption of foods?

Are you serious? So what else can cause obesity if its not related to eating too much?

I don't listen to science or this or that.  They (scientists) are often wrong and don't even agree among themselves a lot of the time.  Mother nature has all of the answers we need pertaining to diet.

I know that earlier you mentioned that you look to nature for your answers, not science. You appear to have an overall distrust of science. But what about anthropologists who are looking into the things this forum believes in? Are they not scientists, and are they not gleaning answers from historical questions? You've obviously come to the realization that eating raw is right? How did you get there? Did you deduce this by yourself, or did a chance reading of an anthropologists (scientists) article bring you to that conclusion? Chances are that scientists' studies of paleolithic man have influenced you. I doubt you'd be on this forum if anthropology never existed.

Yes, because the bottom line is that fasting is NOT natural no matter how you look at it.

You're kind of right. 'Fasting' is a conscious choice, and as a word, its applied only to human decision-making. This might not be natural. But going without food for short periods of time is. Like Tyler pointed out, animals still do it and most likely we did it a very long time ago. To animals now and people in paleolithic times, this is natural. Intermittent fasting is simply the recreation of a natural scenario that our ancestors were acquainted with. I fear you're getting hung up on semantics. Who cares what you call it? It happened in the past, and it happens now.

It is important to clearly identify the place of fasting here since so many others too are in search of that natural answer (diet) as well.  Yes, they can fast but they should know that doing so is NOT natural.

Who placed you in the position of final arbiter on what is and what isn't 'natural'. To my knowledge, the only things that can be considered natural regarding humans are those things that humans have been doing a long time, say on the scale of millions of years. Eating whenever they wanted did not happen in paleolithic times. It didn't even happen for the majority of neolithic times. To me this is 'natural'. Going without food for a few days would also be 'natural' in the sense that it was something that was dealt with regularly on a long time scale.

Mother nature has all of the answers we need pertaining to diet.

Yet Mother Nature is not a person or any such entity that readily yields answers to any who ask. Her answers are gleaned from study, and the studiers are anthropologists, or scientists, and the occasional lay person with the time and intellect to do their own research.

Welcoming Committee / Re: solid foundation
« on: September 19, 2008, 02:42:03 am »
I think a relevant argument here is that if paleolithic man had to go without food for short periods of time frequently, then its most likely that over a long period of time (a million years?) natural selection would have provided him with a digestive adaptation to doing just that. Those that became too weakened from intermittent fasting would not have been able to hunt, eat, survive, and of course, reproduce. Those that did would have been our ancestors.

This argument presupposes that food was not always readily available. It might have been, and it might not have been. If it was not, then I think its safe to say that intermittent fasting is something the human body can easily cope with and might even be beneficial.

And for anybody that has ever been sick (which is just about everyone) how hungry were you? Some sicknesses might actually cause ravenous hunger prompting the person to eat and eat and eat. This would most likely be looked upon as instinct; the sick person is doing exactly what the body tells him or her because thats what it needs. Now how about the rest of the sicknesses that make the thought of food absolutely disgusting? Whenever I'm sick, eating is the last thing I'd like to do. Many people would contend that the sickness makes the body resistant to food. This assumption, IMO, is based on nothing but speculation. It is just as easy (maybe even easier) to say that the body does not want food because that will not help it. And why should the body, which normally does an excellent job of making the most of what it gets, fail to provide the proper signals when we're sick. I don't think instinct is selective. The fact that most people vomit upon eating while sick seems to indicate that their bodies do not need food, and that eating might make the healing process worse or slower. It would almost suggest that fasting for short periods of time under the proper conditions is necessary.

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:54:15 am »

I've never water fasted for more than twelve hours. When I did that it was in preparation for surgery and I was allowed to drink black coffee. Anyway, I'm not sneezing or coughing, just have an annoying fever, and some drainage. Usually when I get these things, fever is the last stage, although it takes days for me before it finally decays away. Also, this might be related to my love affair with cigars. Perhaps its time to bring this romance to an end? And, of course, thanks for the well wishes.

Primal Diet / Organic Pastures
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:46:53 am »
This is the website I've ordered raw milk from. I did a search for it with the forum search tool but I don't think anybody has mentioned it yet.

They claim to be grass-fed and I've placed two orders with them so far. Their milk was good, and their cream was to die for. Personally, raw dairy doesn't sit well with me, so I most likely will not order anything else, but for those of you who do well with dairy, I would say that this seems to be a good source.

Pardon if this has already been posted elsewhere.

General Discussion / Re: New to forum - Hello
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:31:19 am »
thats because RAF is an extreme diet, it wont work and it never will...

RAF is extreme, but radicalism isn't necessarily incorrect thinking. And lets not forget that no diet is perfect. Many people on this forum undoubtedly came here because they've been trying to perfect their nutrition for years now. Some may leave, some may stay. For those that choose to stay, it might be hasty to say that its not working for them. Nutrition isn't an exact science, but what is when you're dealing with living, breathing human beings?

I will be slightly sad to see you go, Metallica. I enjoyed some of your contrarian views. Others were kinda trollish it seems, but every good forum needs some dissent IMO to keep it healthy.

BTW, Michael, I forgot to actually say 'Welcome!'. But I just said it, so we should be cool now, lol.

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:19:03 am »
Might I humbly suggest that you rethink your strategy.  Take this transition step-by-step.  Time is on your side. If you try to push too fast, you're likely to give up before you get out of the starting blocks.

Yes, Lex. This is sound advice. However, I'd like to point out that I gave up raw dairy a month ago and that I've been eating raw meat off and on since May, so there might not be any need for such a long adjustment period.

On the other hand, I had no idea that fasting could lead to such debilitating symptoms. I'm still unsure if this is what the fasting guys call a detox or if I just happened to get a really bad bug right after starting the fast. My head is on fire! I'll be breaking this water fast shortly with fresh fruit juice, and yes, I will take that slowly ;). I'm also taking tomorrow off from work to give me some extra time to recover.

Thanks for your advice.

P.S. Meat should be here tomorrow.

General Discussion / Re: New to forum - Hello
« on: September 18, 2008, 04:48:23 am »
Here's a thread in the off-topic section that might help you get a little better idea:

Personally, I don't think its off-topic, but no biggie.

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: September 18, 2008, 03:16:37 am »
I was wondering if I should break this fast. I started it yesterday morning and have had only water, some green tea, and a dose of fiber (probably should've gone without this one) since then. I got sick yesterday (detox?) and now its considerably worse. I feel like I have the flu and its impossible for me to do anything at work. Maybe I should just take some time off and switch to juice fast instead?

BTW, is this normal, and would you call it a detox or just coincidental sickness?

Welcoming Committee / Re: solid foundation
« on: September 17, 2008, 09:44:03 pm »
I don't know of any animals that intentionally fast so why should I?

I believe animals will refuse to eat food for days on end when they are healing from trauma. For instance, when you bring a pet home from the vet after some sort of surgery, they will most usually hide themselves for days, only coming out occasionally to get some water.

I think the theory is that fasting allows the body to perform some sort of deep cleaning on tissues that have been damaged.

General Discussion / Sickness vs. Detox
« on: September 17, 2008, 01:28:24 pm »
I've read a lot on these forums about "detox" which sounds an awful lot like being sick, having a cold, getting a bug, etc. I remember AV talking about this in his books as well. In fact that was my first exposure to that perspective. It made more sense to me, too. Traditional viral theory never sat well with me. Plus I never got sick whenever other people did, and vice versa.

It all comes down to causes and effects. So which do you guys believe: virus populations in the body cause disease, or disease in the body result in virus populations?

The first argument paints the virus as an aggressor against the body. To use AV's terms, the second paints the virus as a "demolition crew". One is harmful. The other helpful. Interesting how it all turns on the simple observation that virus appears when disease appears. But to you guys: which one causes which? I find this a fascinating subject ...

General Discussion / Re: Ultimate Longevity Anti-Aging Diet
« on: September 17, 2008, 02:19:17 am »
genetics makes up a big part.

I have always found this claim to be highly speculative. Is there any good evidence to support the mainstream claim that genetics make some people super-men despite Burger King diets and others incessantly sick despite rigid "healthy" diet regimens?

General Discussion / Re: Raw Paleo Parenting Tips and Experiences
« on: September 17, 2008, 12:28:16 am »
... despite the fact that numerous people phoned the authorities, after the show, to notify them of the Haigwood kids being "abused/neglected etc." as a result of this diet of rotting meat etc. ...

LOL ... case in point. I really do wish people would just mind their own business ...

But its heartening to hear that people are still free to raise their children they way they'd like.

General Discussion / Re: Acid-Base
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:41:44 pm »
Ah ... thanks for the chemistry lesson, satya.  :P

Ok, now how about a value judgement from an RPD perspective? Something like, 'it's necessary' or 'its bunk'. I don't see much talk about it here, but I know Price talked about it and the Primal guys take acidity and alkalinity of their foods into consideration, too.

General Discussion / Re: Ultimate Longevity Anti-Aging Diet
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:37:57 pm »
Probably wouldn't get a reply that the entire room would agree on. For instance, what consensus would occur between the mountainous swiss who ate rye and dairy and the Inuit who were nearly entirely carnivore? They might come to the conclusion that modern foods are far too rich in adulterated materials and too sparse in decent nutrients. They would probably also laugh at us for thinking their dietary habits are gross  ;D. I think that's all the consensus you'd get though. They might also tell us to exercise more. Not sure. As far as organs and fat as a priority, I'd have to say that it would depend on the culture. But I don't think they would unanimously agree on their primacy.

I should point out that I'm not an expert on primitive cultures  :(

General Discussion / Acid-Base
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:27:35 pm »
What's your take on balancing acidic and basic foods? Necessary, unnecessary, pseudo-science?

General Discussion / Re: Raw Paleo Parenting Tips and Experiences
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:18:00 pm »
The thought of raising children in the states under a raw animal regimen kinda frightens me actually. Americans (IMO) tend to be overly concerned with what other people are doing and our public school officials can be downright nazis at times. I've read some horror stories in the alternative press regarding school officials basically doing everything they can to preempt parents from raising their own kids. My biggest fear would be the wrong official finding out that my kid eats uncooked animal meat and then getting social workers involved on the assumption that I'm trying to "poison" my kid. Of course its poison to them, because it doesn't meet the established criteria for normal food, which would of course me a quack and a crackpot unfit to rear children. But who knows? I might just be paranoid or something.

Hot Topics / Re: Raw vegans vs. raw paleo
« on: September 16, 2008, 07:30:24 am »
In other words there is no set derivative information you can glean off of an animal being in a particular group. There are a lot of animals in the primates group ranging from tarsiers who eat insects at night to gorillas who eat foliage all day.

Bottom Line: Don't eat nothing but fruit just because a nutrition guru says that's what gorillas do. Also, don't make it a point to eat several small meals a day (grazing) just because another guru says that's what deer do. Instead, do those things because you want to ... and presumably throw them out and try something different if they don't work.

As an aside, these are the human taxa (according to WikiPedia):

Domain : Eukaryota
Kingdom : Animalia
Phylum : Chordata
Class : Mammalia
Order : Primates
Family : Hominidae
Genus : Homo
Species : H. Sapiens
Sub-species : H. S. Sapiens

BTW, when I first had to learn taxonomy (7th grade), there was no domain level. At least not that my science teacher knew (or divulged).

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: September 16, 2008, 06:51:20 am »
I plan on starting a couple-day fast (water only) starting tomorrow morning. It should last until the morning after I receive my order, which should be Thursday (at the latest). If it is, then I'll begin eating raw, grass-fed meat Friday morning.

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