Long-term water-fasting is known to help. Check out red light man for combo devices that may help:-

https://redlightman.com

Stop smoking??!! Go ketogenic for a time, preferably raw ketogenic. Avoid alcohol. Exercise somewhat.

Not sure if they are willing to fast, be I guess I'll see. Have you tried the red light devices yourself, Tyler?

They don't smoke. I've already suggested they try a ketogenic, preferably raw ketogenic diet. They are also against meat (although they are very scared so who knows). Alcohol isn't a problem either. Exercise, if they can motivate themselves enough, I think that could be done.

Much like Tyler, I went 100% raw meat (I eat carnivorously, only meat) because I could not tolerate cooked foods well anymore. I haven't eaten a single cooked meal since then. Obviously since I personally couldn't look at raw meat as a vitamin supplement, as that is all I eat. I actually prefer the more nutritious organs and blood over the muscle.

I would recommend going only raw and avoiding cooked foods, it will make it easier in my opinion. But you can obviously try and slowly ease yourself into it, if you think that's something you'd rather do.

I think him changing is not necessarily related to raw meat. People change, for different reasons. I also don't think he's too aggressive, he's probably trying to be more dramatic to get more views. I do think he can be a bit arrogant at times, but again, I don't think he's like that in person.

I'm pretty sure he almost died, so that would also explain some of his strong convictions. I think it's actually a good thing that he's like this, it attracts more people to eating raw meat.


I've personally changed as well, yes. I certainly view things from a different perspective, and this might make me more selfish, although I wouldn't call myself more aggressive unless
attacked/provoked. If anything, I am very calm most of the time, compared to other people.

I would recommend trying more fat, and incorporating organs. They are, after all, the most nutritious part of the animal, much more nutritious than muscle (liver has 10x times the amount in many nutrients, or even more than that). And in my opinion they taste good as well (not all of them are the same, obviously). You should also try and get grass-fed/pastured/organic/wild game in the case of organs and fat, as the difference between that and grain-fed is significant. And just so you know, the red liquid in rump steak is actually myoglobin.

I found this to be quite interesting, most particularly the part about:  It is interesting to note that humans, uniquely among the primates so far considered, appear to have stomach pH values more akin to those of carrion feeders than to those of most carnivores and omnivores.

Definition of carrion feeder: Any animal that feeds on dead and rotting flesh.

Gastric acidity is likely a key factor shaping the diversity and composition of microbial communities found in the vertebrate gut. The study conducted a systematic review to test the hypothesis that a key role of the vertebrate stomach is to maintain the gut microbial community by filtering out novel microbial taxa before they pass into the intestines. The study proposes that species feeding either on carrion or on organisms that are close phylogenetic relatives should require the most restrictive filter (measured as high stomach acidity) as protection from foreign microbes. Conversely, species feeding on a lower trophic level or on food that is distantly related to them (e.g. herbivores) should require the least restrictive filter, as the risk of pathogen exposure is lower. Comparisons of stomach acidity across trophic groups in mammal and bird taxa show that scavengers and carnivores have significantly higher stomach acidities compared to herbivores or carnivores feeding on phylogenetically distant prey such as insects or fish. In addition, the study found when stomach acidity varies within species either naturally (with age) or in treatments such as bariatric surgery, the effects on gut bacterial pathogens and communities are in line with our hypothesis that the stomach acts as an ecological filter. Together these results highlight the importance of including measurements of gastric pH when investigating gut microbial dynamics within and across species.

Common Name	Trophic Group	pH
Common Buzzard	Obligate Scavenger	1.1
White Backed Vulture	Obligate Scavenger	1.2
Common Pied Oystercatcher	Generalist Carnivore	1.2
Bald Eagle	Facultative Scavenger	1.3
Barn Owl	Facultative Scavenger	1.3
Little Owl	Facultative Scavenger	1.3
Common Crow	Obligate Scavenger	1.3
Common Moorhen	Omnivore	1.4
Humans	Omnivore	1.5 (Can go down to 1)
Ferret	Generalist Carnivore	1.5
Wandering Albatross	Obligate Scavenger	1.5
Possum	Facultative Scavenger	1.5
Black-Headed Gull	Facultative Scavenger	1.5
Common Kestrel	Generalist Carnivore	1.5
Swainson's Hawk	Facultative Scavenger	1.6
Beaver	Herbivore/Hindgut	1.7
American Bittern	Facultative Scavenger	1.7
Grey Falcon	Facultative Scavenger	1.8
Peregrine Falcon	Facultative Scavenger	1.8
Red Tailed Hawk	Facultative Scavenger	1.8
Rabbit	Herbivore/Foregut	1.9
Common Starling	Specialist Carnivore/Insect	2.0
Cynomolgus Monkey	Omnivore	2.1
Mallard Duck	Omnivore	2.2
Magellanic Penguin	Specialist Carnivore/Fish	2.3
Bottlenose Dolphins	Specialist Carnivore/Fish	2.3
Gentoo Penguin	Specialist Carnivore/Fish	2.5
Snowy Owl	Generalist Carnivore	2.5
Domesticated Pig	Omnivore	2.6
Woylie Brush Tailed Bettong	Herbivore/Hindgut	2.8
King Penguins	Specialist Carnivore/Fish	2.9
Great Cormorant	Specialist Carnivore/Fish	3.0
Great Horned Owl	Generalist Carnivore	3.1
Rhino	Herbivore/Hindgut	3.3
Elephant	Herbivore/Hindgut	3.3
Southern Hairy Nosed Wombat	Herbivore/Hindgut	3.3
Skyes Monkey	Omnivore	3.4
Crab-Eating Macaque	Omnivore	3.6
Cat	Generalist Carnivore	3.6
Baboon	Omnivore	3.7
	Specialist Carnivore/Insect	3.7
Mouse	Omnivore	3.8
Ox	Herbivore/Foregut	4.2
Guinea Pig	Herbivore/Foregut	4.3
	Herbivore/Hindgut	4.4
Rat	Omnivore	4.4
Horse	Herbivore/Foregut	4.4
Howler Monkey	Herbivore/Hindgut	4.5
Dog	Facultative Scavenger	4.5
Porcupine	Herbivore/Foregut	4.5
Sheep	Herbivore/Foregut	4.7
Gerbil	Herbivore/Foregut	4.7
Hamster	Herbivore/Foregut	4.9
Common Pipistrelle Bat	Specialist Carnivore/Insect	5.1
Minke Whale	Specialist Carnivore/Fish	5.3
Brocket Deer	Herbivore/Foregut	5.5
Collared Peccary	Herbivore/Foregut	5.8
Langur Monkey	Herbivore/Foregut	5.9
Silver Leafed Monkey	Herbivore/Foregut	5.9
Shetland Ponies	Herbivore/Hindgut	5.9
Colobus Monkey	Herbivore/Foregut	6.3
Camel	Herbivore/Foregut	6.4
Echidna	Specialist Carnivore/Insect	6.8
Macropodid	Herbivore/Foregut	6.9
Llama	Herbivore/Foregut	7.0
Guanaco	Herbivore/Foregut	7.3

Obligate - Animals that depend solely on that diet.

Generalist - Is able to thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions and can make use of a variety of different resources.

Specialist - Can thrive only in a narrow range of environmental conditions or has a limited diet. Eats only insects or fish as a carnivore, for example.

Facultative - Does best on a said diet, but can survive-but-not-thrive on a different one.


Results

In total, the studies' literature search yielded data on 68 species (25 birds and 43 mammals) from seven trophic groups (Table 1). A general linear model based on diet explained much of the variation in the stomach pH (R2 = 0.63, F1,6 = 17.63, p < 0.01). The trophic groups that were most variable in terms of their stomach pH were omnivores and carnivores that specialize in eating insects or fish.

The studies' hypothesis was that foregut-fermenting herbivores and animals that feed on prey more phylogenetically–distant from them would have the least acidic stomachs. Tukey-Kramer comparisons indicated that scavengers (both obligate and facultative) had significantly higher stomach acidities compared to herbivores (both foregut and hindgut) and specialist carnivores feeding on phylogenetically distant prey. Specifically, foregut-fermenting herbivores had the least acidic stomachs of all trophic groups while omnivores and generalist carnivores, with more intermediate pH levels, were not distinguishable from any other group (Fig 1).

The special case of herbivory

Carrion feeding imposes one sort of constrain on the ecology of the gut, an increase in the potential for pathogens. Herbivory imposes another, the need to digest plant material refractory to enzymatic digestion (cellulose and lignin). In order to digest these compounds, herbivores rely disproportionately on microbial processes. Different regions of the gastrointestinal tract (either rumen, caecum or in the case of the hoatzin a folded crop) function primarily as fermentation chambers. Thus, a challenge with fermentative guts is favoring those microbes that are useful for digestion while reducing the risk of pathogen entry into the gut. The study suggests that because the threat of microbial pathogens is relatively low on live leaves , herbivores can afford to maintain a chamber that is modestly acidic and therefore less restrictive to microbial entry. However, it finds several interesting exceptions to this generality. Beavers, which are known to store food caches underwater where there is a high risk of exposure to a protozoan parasite Giardia lamblia, have very acidic stomachs. The high stomach acidity may have evolved to manage this prevalent environmental pathogen. The other herbivore in our dataset with a very acidic stomach is the rabbit, which provides an interesting example of a behavioral modification of the stomach environment. Rabbits are known to engage in frequent coprophagy which allows them re-inoculate themselves with microbes. The specialized soft pellets that house microbes also reduce the stomach acidity creating an environment suitable for fermentation.

Human evolution and stomach pH

It is interesting to note that humans, uniquely among the primates so far considered, appear to have stomach pH values more akin to those of carrion feeders than to those of most carnivores and omnivores. In the absence of good data on the pH of other hominoids, it is difficult to predict when such an acidic environment evolved. Baboons (Papio spp) have been argued to exhibit the most human–like of feeding and foraging strategies in terms of eclectic omnivory, but their stomachs–while considered generally acidic (pH = 3.7)–do not exhibit the extremely low pH seen in modern humans (pH = 1.5). One explanation for such acidity may be that carrion feeding was more important in humans (and more generally hominin) evolution than currently considered to be the case. Alternatively, in light of the number of fecal-oral pathogens that infect and kill humans, selection may have favored high stomach acidity, independent of diet, because of its role in pathogen prevention.

The human stomach and the loss of mutualistic microbes

In general, stomach acidity will tend to filter microbes without adaptations to an acidic environment. Such adaptations include resistant cell walls, spore-forming capabilities or other traits that confer tolerance to high acidities and rapid changes in pH conditions. The study considered the role of the stomach as a pathogen barrier within the context of human evolution. Another potential consequence of high stomach acidity, when considered in light of other primates and mammals, is the difficulty of recolonization by beneficial microbes. A large body of literature now suggests that a variety of human medical problems relate to the loss of mutualistic gut microbes, whether because those mutualists failed to colonize during hyper-clean C-section births or were lost through use of antibiotics, or other circumstances. The pH of the human stomach may make humans uniquely prone to such problems. In turn, it might be expected that, among domesticated animals, that similar problems should be most common in those animals that, like humans, have very acidic stomachs.

The special risk to juvenile and elderly humans

If, in carnivores and carrion-feeders, the stomach’s role is to act as an ecological filter then it would also be expected to see higher microbial diversity and pathogen loads in cases where stomach pH is higher. We see evidence of this in age-related changes in the stomach. Baseline stomach lumen pH in humans is approximately 1.5 (it can go down to 1) (Table 1). However, premature infants have less acidic stomachs (pH > 4) and are susceptibility to enteric infections. Similarly, the elderly show relatively low stomach acidity ( pH 6.6 in 80% of study participants) and are prone to bacterial infections in the stomach and gut. It is important to note that these differences may be related to differences in the strength of the immune system however it is argued here that the stomach needs more consideration when studying these patterns.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that stomach acidity increases with the risk of food-borne pathogen exposure and propose that the stomach plays a significant role as an ecological filter and thus a strong selection factor in gut microbial community structure and primate evolution in particular. In light of modern lifestyle changes in diet, hygiene and medical interventions that alter stomach pH, we suggest that stomach acidity in humans is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the high acidity of the human stomach prevents pathogen exposure but it also decreases the likelihood of recolonization by beneficial microbes if and when they go missing. However, in those cases where acidity is reduced, the gut is more likely to be colonized by pathogens. Though it is widely discussed in both the medical and ecological literature, data on pH are actually very scarce. Thus, to fully understand the patterns highlighted here more detailed studies on the gut microbiota across stomach acidities and diet are required.

Personal Opinion: I find it interesting how the only other omnivore other than humans on the list with a pH below 2, is the Common Moorhen. Others with a pH below 2, were all facultative scavengers, obligate scavengers and generalist carnivores (as stated in the study: It is interesting to note that humans, uniquely among the primates so far considered, appear to have stomach pH values more akin to those of carrion feeders than to those of most carnivores and omnivores). Additionally, in the case of the elderly, I do indeed suspect that is it ill health which resulted in highest stomach pH, not in fact increased age. The study also shows the harmful effects of antibiotics and hyper-clean C-section births, among others.

The science section is the right place to post this, am I correct?

Source:

- [The Evolution of Stomach Acidity and Its Relevance to the Human Microbiome](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134116)

I really love thymus they are very savory and creamy, i also like pancreas a lot though its much more tangy almost sour but not really and in a good way. I think those two are my favorites though i do enjoy liver occasionally.

Thanks, I think I'll have to try thymus and pancreas.

depends which source,, I saw your source as cited...  Others state that 20 percent is organic matter which is mainly proteins/collagen  and growth factors etc.   So yes, mostly minerals, but tightly bound with proteins.
   I don't doubt there is value to eating cooked bones, peoples have benefited for eons.

Well, the source does say 10-20% and 60-70%. 60+10=70%. So 30% could potentially be collagen, proteins and inorganic salts.

Well, Derek seems to be benefiting from it, right now. Although I am interested how much of a difference it would make if he consumed raw bones (smaller bones or bone meal).

I already eat liver, marrow, kidneys and heart (and drink blood). Brain has simply not been available until now, so I look forward to trying that eventually along with tongue and testicles. I agree with you regarding the taste of the marrow, I actually think raw marrow is the best food I've ever tried, even better than anything I used to eat on standard cooked diet. Regarding liver, how much did you eat? I eat 100-200 grams a day and think it's great, although if I suddenly stop tolerating it, I will obviously stop. Thanks for the information regarding brain, I have a source which has some very good meat, close to the taste of wild game. Not quite, but I can't get any organs from wild game so it's not like I have much of a choice. Regarding blood, I find it invigorating, where as before the other grain-fed and grass-fed sources were different. Although I've never been able to get it from wild game, so I've no idea what that would be like. What happened with the stag testicles?

I'm also interested about the various glands and other parts. I know, for example, that by far the highest source of Iodine is in the thyroid gland. I'm sure other organs are all unique in the potential benefits they may offer.

I used to do enemas some time ago. Ever since I started eating naturally I've not been constipated once. I only have a bowel movement once a week (perhaps this is because I used to eat so much processed food, carbohydrates, fiber etc... that I became dependent on it), but I don't have any problem with that. My stools are perfectly fine.

I would honestly say that unless you know you are constipated, you should not do enemas. If you are eating a natural diet, you should not use enemas to detox.

If you plan on doing it, time does not matter in my opinion. You can clean it with whatever you want, although I would suggest avoiding anything that you wouldn't put in your mouth. Eat whenever. You should retain the liquid until you can't anymore. Depending on where the blockage is, you might need to use more or less liquid. I used water and olive oil enemas myself.

Goodsamaritan is probably the better person to ask, since he seems to use this on other people all the time.

As I've already, I don't recommend doing enemas at all unless you absolutely have to. Otherwise you might get dependent on them and then you'll want to use them more and more... Until eventually you'll cause yourself more problems than it was worth.

Very interesting. Do you eat any other animals than sheep? You could get more blood and marrow from larger animals, along with any other parts of the animal (organs, muscle, whatever).
And if you do only eat sheep, any reason why you prefer sheep over other animals?

Also, in regards to bones, how much do you eat?

I'd love to see the source for the ca. in marrow.  thanks

Marrow has around 277.3 to 339.7 mg of calcium per 100 grams (in reindeer) according to this:

Level of selected nutrients in meat, liver, tallow and bone marrow from semi-domesticated reindeer (Rangifer t. tarandus L.):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417664/

It shows plenty of other vitamins/minerals/proteins/fats in reindeer  muscle, liver, tallow and bone marrow.

Ok.

But what about the lower limits?

How could we get calcium and phosphorous from organs and meat diet only?

I don't mean to discourage anyone from eating bones, I just personally think it is more natural to eat smaller bones raw than larger ones cooked. Perhaps Derek is on to something, and the extremely large amounts of calcium and phosphorus are useful, I couldn't say. You could also eat lower amount, no need to overeat on bones. Although I am curious just how much is actually absorbed.

The best source of calcium other than bones would be bone marrow. Phosphorus is present in all types of meat (muscle and organs), and shouldn't be a problem.