I can't imagine how people can eat those, let alone live on them. The taste is absolutely horrible, besides the fact that they look like crap.

Thanks PaleoPhil!

Not really, e.g. they gave l-carnitine to mice and they ended up with atherosclerotic plaque unlike controls, or mice given both l-carnitine and antibiotics. The research looks like it was very well done, leaving little room for remarks like "it's just a meaningless correlation".

Pure carnitine is not produced by heat but by other means (chemical processes, bacterial fermentation, etc.), resulting in really exactly these molecules, so we can't simply say it's different from l-carnitine in raw meat, nor can we blame the results on heated/processed food (except maybe for the human trials between vegans and omnivores who were given meat I think).

I'm just saying that we can't simply exclude the possibility of these bacteria producing TMAO when eating raw meat, because there's no evidence regarding this. L-carnitine is a molecule that should be same in cooked as well as in raw meat.. it's not some sort of new compound created specifically from heating. If a lot of it is regularly coming from diet it makes sense that the number of gut bacteria that thrives on it will be high (hence the difference between meat eaters and vegans in that study). Here are the amounts in some foods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnitine#Food

Don't know about that, but here's an example article: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3035646?uid=3737864&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101865010313

Rather than having and adaptive basis in ecology or behavior, variation in the degree of menstrual bleeding in primates shows a striking correlation with phylogeny. The endometrial microvasculature is designed to provide the blood supply to the endometrium and the placenta, and external bleeding appears to be a side effect of endometrial regression that arises when there is too much blood and other tissue for complete reabsortion. The copious bleeding of humans and chimps can be attributed to the large size of the uterus relative to adult female size and to the design of the microvasculature in catarrhines.

My guess is that amount of blood decreases or goes to zero when there's lack of nutrients, whether it's calories, protein, etc., in order to conserve energy.

Anyone knows of a natural fat-free solution for washing hair?

Yeah I'll avoid replying to trollofthedungeon, typically it's just a waste of time for me and for him as well anyway.

A more informative topic title would be better.

please stop bringing your silly completely unscientific anecdotes into this. You feeding your dogs whatever you can find including raw cooked and frozen simply cannot prove anything since there are so many variables.

Ok, can you bring the scientific support then for your and Aajonus' claim? That freezing has any measurable impact on the health of dogs and humans (not that it changes food, this is pretty evident).

I eat mainly frozen food and I don't notice any negative effects.

Same here; in fact I buy fresh, unfrozen meat and anyway freeze it myself out of convenience.

this comment is clearly the exact same thing and is not helping anybody. He is talking about how cooked foods are fine. He should go on the cooked paleo forum to talk that nonsense not here.

and please alp, since your dogs did so well on cooked food you should probably start eating some too. 

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say they wouldn't be better off with raw meat, just that I have never observed such conditions in mine (or friends' dogs), and I told what we were feeding them. The fact that the food we would give to them would typically be both cooked and frozen makes the claim that just frozen but still raw meat causing issues seem way exaggerated.

WHen aajonus fed one group of dogs raw meat and the other group previously frozen raw meat (the same meat) the frozen group of dogs started get various problems such as mange and skin rashes over time. All problems went away as soon as he put them back on unfrozen.

Wow. I've had so many dogs and fed them with whatever leftovers we had (food frozen and cooked, double damage!), and they lived just fine to old age without any such problems. How come?

What makes you think that? Do you know many people eating that way and taking into account (as they should) the fact that modern heavily selected fruits can be eaten in too large amounts? Of course, “instincto” cannot work perfectly with intensely selected modern foods. To work perfectly, we should be in our primitive environment, which is lost, and eat only wild foods.

I fail to see why "instincto" could not work with modern "heavily selected" fruits. Your instinctive stop should in theory come depending on various factors, including amount of sugar, fat, and other nutrients. So if you eat modern, more sugary fruits, you will simply eat less (e.g. one modern apple instead of two wild ones), as long as you eat slowly and pay attention to your senses and reactions. You can not eat too much sugar, unless you're either consuming cooked food/dairy (which can skew your senses) or you ignore your instincts.

That "damage" early in life has greater effect on your athletic potential than your genes..
How about checking the olympic medalists, and whether their moms did anything different than the mothers of normal people? Did the mom of this guy did anything special?
And makeup, vaccines, are you serious? Are you saying that top athletes and powerlifters didn't get vaccines? And that they ate something particularly different from SAD? Just don't come out saying they had great genes which made up for the "damage"!