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 - Cthulhu

Pages: [1]
Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 07, 2009, 01:53:52 am »
Actually, Paleophil was talking about Charles of fame. I am one of those who had to quit zero-carb for health-reasons(and because I couldn't lift weights or do sports to any genuine extent while avoiding absolutely all carbs). Re PP's mention of me:-I think (?) that's to do with when I mentioned something a while back re Charles having stated that he took longer to recover from marathons as a result of going for a (cooked)ZC diet, - I'd thought that it was Lex who'd stated this, though, not PP. It was definitely a ZCer.

Ahh, okay. I got a little mixed up here with names, since I am still somewhat new to the forum. That explains it. How much do you lift every week?

Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 07, 2009, 01:42:26 am »
".....if you can get past some of the brain wash Biotest fan boys."

That's one reason why I left the website.

Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 06, 2009, 01:10:01 pm »
Hey Cthulhu, I liked your post. I workout 5x a week about 2+ hours each(bjj & thai) workout & I do 3 days of lifting (5-3-1 method). If I don't eat a banana in between workouts or after. My muscles cramp up. I carb cycle as well. Glad to know I'm not the only one in this forum who's down with the PWO insulin spike lol.

I experience the same thing as well. When I wake up in the morning and eat breakfast, I have to eat enough healthy carbohydrates or else my lifts in the gym will suffer. It's just a simple fact that glycogen is a muscles main fuel source, not protein or fat. It is the most basic, readily form of energy and that is what athletes need. In fact, trying to build a good amount of muscle is self-defeating in the long run without some foundation of energy coming from carbohydrates because if you're not spiking your insulin after working out hard, your body will REMAIN in a catabolic state where muscle tissue will be consumed for energy, not glycogen. At this point, it would be a waste of time lifting weights and/or trying to build muscle. You see, insulin is like a gun. It can be used for good things or bad things. It is not an "evil" hormone. Insulin is a very powerful tool to help athletes reach their fitness goals - it just gets absued a lot by the average SADer who is not active and eats the wrong kinds of carbs. One thing some of us lifters do who want to cycle our carbs is eat five days very low carb (under 30 grams a day) and on the last two days of the week consume a high amount of carbs (to refill depleated glycogen stores). You'd have to do two or three weeks (from what I remember) of very low carb dieting (under 30 grams a day) so that your body is well adapted to burning fat for fuel, then that's when you do the carb cycling with 5 low carb days and 2 high carb days. I often recommend this to the people I train with, including the newbie natural bodybuilders/powerlifters. The diet is called "The Anabolic Diet", I believe. Most cooked food eaters do it, but all you have to do is adjust it for your raw paleo lifestyle. This is a great alternative to the more carb sensitive crowed and you will see your lifts go through the roof. In fact, I might go back to this way of eating for a little while because it has been very good to me. Nevertheless, the truth is carbohydrates, in the natural form of fruit and honey, is healthy and essential to most athletes.


Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 06, 2009, 10:47:30 am »
Thanks for the input, Cthulhu. I think we covered almonds/nuts pretty thoroughly and I don't want to beat it to death, so I'll call it a wrap if you don't mind.

Re: exercising on ZC, I believe those who say they've had problems with it--and Lance Armstrong is an example of someone who performs very well on an extremely high carb diet, perhaps because he burns so many calories so fast (buyer beware: I don't know what long-term effects he might get from eating so many refined, processed modern foods, and he did already get cancer, so I'm not recommending his approach, just acknowledging the performance results). For whatever reason, my own ability and desire to exercise has actually been going up on raw carnivore, so I guess I lucked out. I'm certainly not knocking it. :D And I don't notice any shorter recovery time. Actually, my muscles don't seem to stay sore as long as they used to.

For any interested, I asked Charles about his recovery and performance on ZC and he gave a very different picture than what Tyler perceived (and I had perceived basically the same picture that Tyler had, but he gave a somewhat complex explanation about what he really meant that I think I understand--if you want more details on Charles' view, please ask him, as I don't want to get into relaying messages between people and trying to represent other's views, neither of which ever works well for me).

I agree, but, like you already said, Lance Armstrong's diet is high in processed carbohydrates, not healthy carbohydrates. You can't even begin to compare gatorade to wild, raw honey. Scientists still have not yet discovered all of the nutrients in bee products. Also, keep in mind that insulin resistance doesn't just happen out of the blue. People become insulin resistant because of the damage they have done to their pancreas by eating highly refined carbohydrates that are hard to digest and because they do not exercise much. If you are truly active, like our paleo ancestors were, then insulin sensitivity is dramatically increased, therefore your body can handle carbohydrates much better. My muscles don't stay sore much longer than they used to, although, on my very hard powerlifting days, I look forward to being a little sore because it's usually a sign that shows me I have exercised hard enough and did the exercise right. But I don't get sore like I used to, mostly because of raw meat/fat, not so much my carbohydrate intake. I am not sure what Tylers  level of fitness is. He may be pretty active, but I don't know if he is a bodybuilder or powerlifter. This is a different class of fitness. If he is a powerlifter and claims to be able to bench or deadlift an extreme amount of weight on a zero carb diet, then I do not know how that would be scientifically possible since extreme athletes REQUIRE insulin spikes, otherwise their body would be more prone to catabolism and they would lose msucle tissue, along with strength, thus defeating their overall fitness goals. If someone can remain active on a very low carbohydrate diet and it works for them, then great. But it's a time tested fact that extreme athletes require plenty of carbohydrates, otherwise it would be common to see a zero carb dieter deadlift 1000 pounds easily.

Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 06, 2009, 02:26:12 am »
Almonds are moot, as recently in the U.S.A. they were added to the list of things not permitted to be sold raw.

Not true. You cannot buy raw almonds from a company that bags/processes them, but, thanks to a legal loophole, you can buy raw almonds directly from a farm or imported raw almonds. When I do eat nuts, I am able to buy imported raw Hunza nuts (organic). I mostly just buy raw macadamia nuts because they have a high saturated fat content and I do better on them than other nuts that are higher in protein and lower in fat.

Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 05, 2009, 11:14:27 am »
"I agree. Plants, whether they be sweet or bitter almonds (Prunus dulcis) or even wheat berries will only produce noticeable harm if eaten in sufficient quantity given the sensitivity of the individual consuming them. Also, sweet almonds are much less toxic than wild (bitter) almonds. Based on what I've read so far, I don't recommend eating a bunch of wild almonds, but if you have sources that contadict that, please do share them. As I mentioned, I only just learned of this stuff myself and I'm hoping that the sources that claimed all traces of amygdalin are absent from sweet almonds are correct. Unfortunately, none of those sources had scientific references. The most scientific source I found reported that there IS amygdalin in almonds. There are likely other antinutrients as well, as most plant reproductive organs seem to contain multiple antinutrients. Yes, as I mentioned, antinutrients can even be medicinal--in limited quantities, for limited times, depending on the person's sensitivity and the amount of any detoxicants consumed with them, and who knows what other variables."

Again, not all anti-nutrients in their natural form are harmful because many plants have other chemical compounds that deactivate these anti-nutrients within it's natural biochemical sequence, as I have already showed with the biochemical activity of the amygdalin molecule. So, it's not a question of whether a certain nut/seed has amygdalin or not. The simple fact is, amygdalin is not toxic to the human body, therefore it does not matter. In general, most bitter nuts/seeds have the highest concentration of amygdalin, whereas the less bitter fruits and nuts/seeds usually have a much lower concentration of the molecule. Sweet almonds probably contain a very small amount of amygdalin, but not enough. Obviously, you can eat too much fruit, but that really means nothing, since we all know that too much of anything can be harmful, including animal products (ever ate too much fat back?). For example, I do very well on raw honey and fruit because I am very active. Without it, I would ruin my health and fitness goals. Some people may be more carb-sensitive from decades of eating highly refined, unnatural carbs and probably do better on a high fat diet. That's fine and if that works, then they should keep at it. But I am not concerned about the healthy sugar in fruits and honey (yes, it is healthy, at least for me, due to my highly active lifestyle, not to mention the fact that they still contain very healthy nutrients) or the "anti-nutrients" because, from my background in science, I know that most of it is not a big deal, nor does it negatively affect my health, therefore I will keep eating it and setting new fitness goals.

Here is another source I found: nevertheless, I currently have a hard time believing it because
"Oil of bitter almonds, which is used in cooking, contains enough cyanide to be lethal, and people have committed suicide by drinking it.

First of all, that statement can't be true because if it contained a 'concentrated source' of cyanide then it would be illegal. Also, this just goes to show you how poor the authors biochemistry is if he calls it "concentrated" because, once again, the cyanide can only become harmful or "concentrated/isolated" when unlocked outside of the amygdalin molecule or broken down via beta-glucosidase/rhodanese (enzymatic activity). In other words, you can think of the amygdalin molecule being a bird cage with a bird in it. In order for that bird to get out of the cage, you need a key. Without the key, the bird will NOT get out. Beta-glucosidase/rhodanese is the key. The bird is cyanide. I cannot find the source that you cited. Please give me a link. I also forgot to mention that, from what you have given me, the author does not list any names or actual records. So far, not factual.

"Two cases of accidental poisoning with cyanide reported in 1981 involved groups of children in Israel who ate apricot kernels, which are, apparently, 'sweet and tasy'. In the first, involving a group of thirteen children, three died about half an hour after eating the 'sweets'. In the other case, which involved eight children, one died and the others were ill within two hours of eating the kernels."

A major problem here. Apricot kernels are NOT 'sweet and tasty'. They are VERY bitter. I eat them on a regular basis. In fact, most kids will not eat them in their natural state because of how bitter they are. This is because amygdalin is bitter, NOT sweet. If this is true, then this is really good evidence that shows you they were poisoned by something else. Nevertheless, I am currently having a hard time believing this because no kid will run around calling apricot kernels  "sweet and tasty" after consuming them.  

Apricot and almond kernels contain a substance called amygdalin, a sugar-like molecule which has a cyanide group within it. The cyanide is released when the kernel is chewed because an enzyme in the kernel is released and becomes active when it is chewed in the presence of saliva. The enzyme breaks down the amygdalin to release the cyanide. The exact number of apricot kernels that need to be eaten before adverse effects appear depends on the individual and on the type of kernel. Fifty or more kernels will certainly have adverse effects, but as few as twelve bitter almond kernels have been reported to cause serious toxic effects in an individual." --John A. Timbrell, toxicologist, The poison paradox: chemicals as friends and foes, pp. 218-219"

Another major problem here. Once again, only a small amount of amygdalin is hydrolyzed by the body or somatic cells. When this molecule is broken down, cyanide is not just "released" and you die. It does not work out that way. As soon as the very small amount of amygdalin is hydrolized by the body or somatic cells, the rhodanese enzyme, which is found in abundance within the human body, quickly converts the HCN to thiocyanate, which is relatively non-toxic. The author got all his biochemistry wrong on this one too. And once again, no sources were established. No records, no names, nothing. I need a link showing records of these events. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this sounds a lot like anti-amygdalin, big pharma propaganda (like the kind that went on in the early 70's when they tried to get it banned). Many different tribes still consume plenty amygdalin and they're not all dying off. In fact, the Hunza diet is pretty high in amygdalin.

"You almost convinced me about almonds until you reminded me that some people soak them. I get a bit suspicious if a food should be processed before it's eaten, and if sweet almonds are "not toxic whatsoever," what is the point of soaking them? If soaking is to get toxins out, how does one know that all the toxins are gone?"

Almonds, like most nuts, become more digestible when soaked (enzyme inhibitors are released), although some higher fat nuts, like macadamia nuts, don't really need to be soaked.

"Many people, including some scientists, claim that the toxin levels in domesticated grains, legumes, etc. are negligible after processing (soaking, cooking, etc.), but when Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg and others investigated, they found significant levels of toxins remain after processing and millions of people claim to react to these foods. Interestingly, tree nuts (including the fruit seeds called almonds) are one of the more commonly reported food allergies."

I don't eat grains, so that does not apply to this post. Actually, the most commonly reported plant food allergies stem from certain plant foods in their cooked form, just like how most dairy allergies stem from pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (no matter what your position is on raw dairy, that's a simple fact).
"As I mentioned, all primates that eat diets heavy in antinutrient-rich plants (which basically means all the primates who aren't frugivores or faunivores) eat at least some clay or other detoxicant."

Yes, but 1. they do not consume clay on a regular basis and 2. you also forget the fact that fruit contains plenty of fiber, which pull toxins out of your body.

"I posted info in at least one other thread from a book that goes into this in some depth. I find the nonhuman primates more convincing than humans on such matters because they don't have allegiances to any dietary doctrines."

I agree. Humans can be rather dogmatic and ignorant in their approach. I have experimented with many different macronutrient ratios (low/zero carb, higher carb, etc.) and I just found what works best for me and my athletic goals. Like I said before, if someone finds a way of eating that works best for them, then that's great - after all, not everyone has the same nutritional needs. So, if you want to make the whole arguement about antinutrients or amygdalin being harmful, although I have debunked the unfounded claims, then you also have to say that red meat is unhealthy because Vitamin B-12 contains cyanide.

"The problem with this is, less antinutrients/insecticides means higher susceptibility to predation by insects, worms and other animals. So pesticides were developed, first natural ones and then synthetic ones made from petrochemicals."

No, not exactly. Less MINERALS/natural plant toxins usually means more pesticides, etc. Plants that grow in minerally depleted soil need more pesticides, etc.

"So the question is, have humans had enough time to adapt to the antinutrients in almonds and/or have the antinutrient levels in raw almonds been reduced so low that they can be eaten fairly regularly without problems? So far what I've been finding is reminiscent of what I read about grains and legumes. Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that grains and legumes are healthy if soaked and sprouted or cooked, but their claims didn't pan out for me. My own experience found them to be toxic for me and tons of accumulating science suggests they are toxic for many people, possibly all."

Once again, it's not that plants contain some antinutrients/natural toxins, but it's how those antinutrients/plant toxins digest and affect our bodies. That's why I talked about amygdalin. Yes, it has cyanide, but how does this molecule digest in our bodies? Pretty well. After all, I consume amygdalin on a regular basis and I am not dead. The fact is, once again, if you want to make an arguement for amygdalin being harmful/deadly, then you would have to say that Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) is harmful because, after all, Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) contains cyanide too. Why aren't we dead? Because our bodies are well adapted to handle Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) like it is amygdalin, not to mention the fact that it is not in it's concentrated form. Plant toxins/anti-nutriets, once absorbed by our bodies, can become BENEFICIAL toxins/chemical compounds because they are MODIFIED through the biochemical actions of enzymatic activity, etc., therefore they are no longer the same molecule that they once were before they entered the body. So, yes, there can be a natural plant toxin that is used to protect the plant, but once it enters our body it might be broken down into beneficial chemical compounds, etc. The fact is, ALL FOODS, both plant and animal, contain toxins and bacteria. Plants contain natural toxins that can be beneficial to our health, including cyanide. Animal meat/fat too contains natural bacteria and toxins that can be beneficial to our health, INCLUDING cyanide (vitamin B-12).

"My experience with almonds was that by eliminating them and all other nuts from my diet, my health improved a bit further. Even if soaking almonds eliminated all problems, if I have to do that I can't be bothered with them. Besides, I found raw nuts to be rather bland and I don't really miss them. They were very tasty with some dried dates or mangoes mixed in, but I'll bet even you would admit that adding dried fruit would not be optimally healthy. So I'm not convinced that I should add them back into my diet, but I'd still like to explore their toxicity or lack thereof, since friends and relatives do eat them and ask me questions about foods from time to time."

And that's great. If you experience good health by doing so, then keep on doing it, but I have experienced better health since I added in some raw plant fats and fruits/raw honey because my body REQUIRES it for my level of fitness. I need an insulin spike after I finish working out to promote protein synthesis and pull my body out of catabolism. I have done zero carb long enough to 'adapt' to it (for about a year when I properly calculate it) and my health WAS declining, along with my fitness goals. I am a big believer in raw animal food and that is the foundation of my diet, but my body requires fruit and honey in order to function. Nuts are not essential, but every now and then I will take a handful and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as dried fruit goes, well, it depends on what kind of dried fruit you're eating. I consume goji berries almost daily (it is one of my main sources of plant antioxidants), which are sun dried and they don't spike my blood sugar violently. In fact, many people find that they actually help balance blood sugar levels, as I too have found. Other than that, the only dried fruit I consume is right before or after powerlifting. Dried fruit won't harm me because, like I said above, I NEED to spike my insulin levels after exercising in order to hault catabolism. A heavy, high fat, no/very low carb meal will NOT immediately pull your body out of a catabolic state by spiking insulin levels, driving glucose and amino acids into muscle cells (this can happen because 1. insulin sensitivity is increased after heavy exercises and 2. glycogen stores are depleted, so nutrients will go to muscle cells rather than fat cells). The fact is, for very active athletes like me, sugar from fruit and honey IS needed. I would have to question some of the raw paleo dieters who believe all sugar is evil, if they are truly active, like our raw paleo ancestors were, because it is hard as hell to lift huge rocks and logs and hike/run up mountains on a zero carb diet. I am saying this from first hand experience. Anyway, I don't want to come across as some hard-head who is bashing other peoples diets. I am just raising some interesting questions.


Journals / Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: October 05, 2009, 03:50:21 am »
Yeah, my own experience matches what Tyler said about dairy and nuts too. I know, bummer.

I managed to eliminate dairy early, despite it being one of the food categories I was most addicted to. When I tried to reintroduce pasteurized or raw dairy products the results were unpleasant. I've never tried unpasteurized ghee, but I have no desire to, since grassfed suet is more easily acquired and cheaper where I live and I have come to love suet melted at low temps, and I believe it likely that animal fats have superior health effects for me over dairy fats, based on my experience and research.

Tree nuts (mainly almonds and walnuts) were one of the last foods I gave up and I resisted it--in part because I liked them but mostly because so many sources said that tree nuts were healthy, including Cordain, Eaton and Audette. I did better after I eliminated the nuts and not long afterward I discovered that wild almonds are lethally toxic (I've read that as little as a handful can kill you) and almonds were not domesticated until the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) or possibly a bit earlier ( It makes sense, because the almond tree doesn't "want" the almonds to be eaten, since almonds are the seed of the plant that must survive and germinate if the tree is to reproduce. Plus, the geographic range of almonds was quite limited in Paleo times and is still rather limited today, despite some intentional spread. So it's surprising that Cordain, Eaton and Audette consider almonds a Paleo food. My guess is that they are not familiar with the full history of almonds. It doesn't make sense to me for us to eat foods that nature explicitly put toxic chemicals in to make sure we would NOT eat them.

The most toxic antinutrient in almonds is cyanogenic glycoside amygdalin, a chemical which can became hydrogen cyanide (Prussic acid) if the nuts get crushed (such as from chewing). Amygdalin from peach and apricot pits is used in the production of the controversial alternative cancer treatment Laetrile (the toxic effect of the amygdalin in Laetrile is supposed to kill the cancer cells--remember, most medicines are toxic and tend to have side effects if taken for a sufficiently long period or in a sufficiently large dose). The amount of amygdalin (and other antinutrients) in domesticated almonds is far lower than in the lethal wild almonds, but there's still some in it. Many sources mistakenly report that there's no amygdalin at all in domesticated ("sweet") almonds, but this is simply not true (did this urban legend come from industry propaganda, I wonder?). Whole freeze dried sweet almonds without the skin average 1.2 mg of amydalin per gram dry weight of almonds ("Pharmaceutical compositions for alleviating excess levels of sugar in diabetic patients," Other plant foods reportedly containing small amounts of amygdalin include beansprouts, carrots, celery, green peppers, lettuce, and mushrooms, among others (Stephen N. Vogel, Thomas R. Sultan, and Raymond P. Ten Eyck, "Cyanide Poisoning," Clinical Toxicology, 1981, Vol. 18, No. 3 : Pages 367-383, and "Apricot: Herbal Medicines," sources require registration).

Again, as Tyler has mentioned elsewhere, small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects, but if eaten regularly as staple foods, one might consider emulating what all other primates do that eat plenty of antinutrient-containing foods: they regularly eat healing clays or other toxin-absorbing materials from time to time. Given the low doses of antinutrients in some of today's farmed foods, it may not take that much clay to do the trick, though I prefer to just avoid the antinutrient foods, at least for now. Also, I should note that some people appear to have higher tolerances for plant antinutrients and carbs than others. I appear to have very low tolerances, but others here have reported much higher tolerances, so your best guide is probably the signals from your own body.

I only recently learned this info about almonds, so if I erred anywhere, feel free to correct me.

About amygdalin:

Just because a plant contains an anti-nutrient or natural toxin does not mean it will harm our bodies. Some natural toxins in plants are actually very healthy to the human body. Amygdalin is completely non-toxic. That one link is a joke, since it obviously lacks a basic understanding of biochemistry. I wish more people would try to understand biochemistry before making such unfounded claims. I consume amygdalin almost every other day for it's benefits of cancer prevention. When I eat certain fruits that have seeds that contain amygdalin, I just eat the seeds along with it. Yes, only certain bitter tasting seeds/nuts contain enough amygdalin, so only bitter almonds, apple seeds, apricot seeds, and a few other nuts/seeds are high in amygdalin. I have been consuming amygdalin for years and there are no negative side effects whatsoever.
Many people will say that amygdalin is 'toxic' and can harm you because it contains cyanide, but, once again, that is because they haven't done the research or don't understand basic biochemistry. Vitamin B-12 also contains a form of cyanide (cyanocobalamin). Why don't people drop dead from cyanide poisoning from consuming red meat? Well, it's simple, actually. Cyanide, in it's gaseous form, is very deadly. However, as far as food goes, it's completely different, due to the natural biochemical sequence of chemical compounds that depend on each other. So, just because amygdalin contains cyanide does not mean it is deadly. Cyanide, in certain natural forms, can actually be very healthy. Anyway, the whole amygdalin and cyanide issue is scientifically moot.

Each molecule of amygdalin contains one unit of cyanide, one unit of benzaldehyde and two units of glucose which are bonded together. This is why amygdalin is very bitter tasting. The only way this cyanide can become harmful is if it is "unlocked" outside of it's natural compound by an enzyme called beta-glucosidase. This enzyme can only be found in very small quantities all over our bodies, except at cancer tumor sites, where large amounts of this enzyme can be found. In other words, cyanide is only released when it comes in contact with a cancer s, due to the large quantities of beta-glucosidase that is present. This is VERY deadly to cancer cells because not only is the cyanide unit released, but so is the benzaldehyde unit. At this point, benzaldehyde acts synergistically with cyanide and becomes 100 times more deadly then either unit in it's isolated form. This ONLY happens when it comes in contact with cancer cells. What if cancer cells aren't present? Well, simple. ONLY a very small amount of amygdalin from food is hydrolyzed by your body or somatic cells. Your body has massive quantities of an enzyme called rhodanese. This enzyme will convert cyanide and benzaldehyde into beneficial by-products (the HCN converts into relatively non-toxic thiocyanate). This is why amygdalin is non-toxic.

My conclusion:

Almonds are not toxic whatsoever, as long as you soak them before you eat them. This just goes to show you that fruit and nuts can be healthy and can protect you against cancer. When people often talk about certain chemical compounds in food and how 'bad' they can be, they OFTEN forget that it's usually in it's NATURAL BIOCHEMICAL SEQUENCE where other chemicals/anti-nutrients cancel out those harmful effects, thus making the whole theory behind all anti-nutrients/plant toxins being harmful null and void. As I just showed, certain natural plant toxins protect our bodies from disease and are healthy. Some seeds and nuts have great health benefits BECAUSE of certain natural plant toxins that are good for our bodies. To say that nuts/seeds are harmful because of amygdalin would mean that red meat is harmful because of Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin). Obviously, this is an absurd statement and is not true whatsoever.

So, I say to those who often overlook this important fact, just because there is a certain anti-nutrient or toxin in a plant doesn't mean it is unhealthy. Try understanding it's biochemical nature first, before coming to rash conclusions and claiming it is harmful because, in MANY cases, it can be the direct opposite. In the meantime, I will continue to eat amygdalin from my fresh produce and certain nuts/seeds. Certain soaked nuts are fine in decent amounts, as long as you don't eat too many or make it the main source of your fat/caloric intake. Just make sure you eat a raw animal food-based diet and then you can fill the rest in with certain nuts/seeds, fresh fruits, and raw/wild honey (for those who aren't zero carb).


Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Raw sterilized?
« on: October 04, 2009, 09:53:18 am »
Thanks for the suggestions.  Lemon juice sounds doable.  I'm not that concerned with bacteria.  I don't drink alcohol and I got rid of my freezer and  microwave.  At least my lifestyle is becoming more paleo...  

My concern mainly lies with parasites - tapeworms, nematodes, prions, etc...  

I would think that a salt water non-fish like octopus or squid would have the least chances of having a parasite that could set up camp in my bowels.

Dehydrating looks interesting.  It appears to be the oldest form of preservation.  

I know, I know, gotta be raw raw raw lol...  

There is no reason to be afraid of eating raw meat. I understand, it's natural to feel that way when the world and media makes it look raw meat is this deadly toxin that you must, at all costs, avoid, but we're all living proof that you will not die. You can start out by using lime/lemon juice and/or raw vinegar, as others have suggested. Let it sit out at room temp. for an hour or so and then soak it for 15-30 minutes, then wipe it off and eat it or do whatever you're going to do with it. I still make certain raw meat dishes with herbs/spices and will use lime/lemon juice to add some bite. Nothing is wrong with that.

As far as bacteria and parasites go, most 'bad' bacteria and parasites found on raw meat is killed by your hydrochloric stomach acid during digestion. The "good bacteria" in your digestive system will also see to this. This is actually why I think most newbies should get on a good probiotic supplement/food source for a little while as they ease into this diet. It's funny how most people that I know who eat cooked foods and have gotten food poisoning have always had some kind of digestive issue where their stomach would not secrete enough acid to digest the food.

Wai Dieters / Re: Fructose
« on: October 04, 2009, 09:22:32 am »
 Fruit and vegetables; at the bottom of the list.  Do you know what percentage of calories of the fruits you eat is from fructose?

Well, I am a natural bodybuilder/powerlifter, so I do not do zero carb dies. I eat about 3500-3800 calories a day just to maintain my LBM and fitness levels (I lift 5 days a week). Of the 3500-3800 calories that I consume, about 30% come from protein, 40% come from fat (mostly animal fat, filled in with some avocado and coconut fat), and 30% come from carbs. Sometimes my carb intake will go as high as 35-40% on special days or events, but it usually stays around the lower/moderate range (which is 30% or less). My main carb source is very simple: wild, raw honey and organic (mostly wild crafted/organic) fruit. I usually eat my raw honey post-workout or right before lifting weights only. The raw honey for my post-workout shake/meal is needed for an insulin spike in order to pull my body out of a catabolic state (lifting weights is catabolic). I try to make this low fat, high carb shake/meal.  So, for example, if I am consuming 3500 calories, with the macronutrient ratios adjusted for above, then 30% of my calories from carbohydrates would equal about 1050 calories. So, one serving of the raw honey that I eat contains about 60 calories and I try to aim for at least a few hundred grams of carbs for an insulin spike, so I'd say about 480 calories come from honey and then a few hundred more from wild bananas and/or berries, in conjunction with a raw lean protein source. Usually, when I am in a rush, I just throw in a bunch of organic eggs and blend them up with honey and fruit and that is enough for my muscles to prevent catabolism.

Wai Dieters / Re: Fructose
« on: October 04, 2009, 06:16:35 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.

General Discussion / Re: When sick
« on: October 04, 2009, 03:59:04 am »
Perhaps zero carb requires one to readjust to carbs but even then no one can completely digest carbs properly. Whether they know it or not, everyone has at least some trouble with carbs - hence farting and foul smelling stools being considered 100% normal.

Excuse me, but I know when a certain food affects my health in a bad way. I eat fruit and raw honey without a problem. My body does great on it and I do not have any digestive issues whatsoever( no gas, no "loose stools", etc.). To say that carbs 'negatively' affect everyone in some way, whether they know it or not, is an overstatement. Not eating any carbs would actually negatively affect my health because my body requires them for the kind of lifestyle that I lead.

General Discussion / Re: When sick
« on: October 04, 2009, 03:53:30 am »
Thought I'd chime in on the whole ow/zero carb thing:

I have experimented with different macronutrient ratios while eating raw foods. I have even been on a pretty much zero carb, all raw meat diet long enough to 'adapt', where my body did not rely on carbs to burn for energy, but it was still impossible for me to do for my level of fitness. I do powerlifting/natural bodybuilding and after a while I was getting weaker and crashing - not to mention I was not able to spike my insulin levels post-workout like I usually do to quickly pull my body out of a catabolic state. I had some great results doing zero carb, but they were largely offset by the negative side effects that I was experiencing. It's just not for me. I cannot powerlift on a diet of zero carbs. I do, however, cycle my carbs, which I find to work best for me. For example, I lift 5 days a week and two days a week I do not lift. I also take a week off every 6-8 months. On my off days, I don't eat many carbs at all. On my lift days, however, I do eat carbs. I think a lot of people get the diets of sedentary/normal raw paleo dieters mixed up with those of raw paleo natural bodybuilders, which is totally different. Just to maintain my strength and LBM, in conjunction with my level of fitness, I need about 3500-3800, sometimes more, calories a day. At the moment, I'd say about 30% of my calories come from protein, 40% come from fat, and 30% come from carbs. Sometimes my carbs will go to 40%. If someone just exercises a few days a week, then perhaps a very low carb diet or a zero carb diet will work best for them, but it would destroy me as far as my fitness goals are concerned. Not to mention, I do not have any bad side effects from eating this way. I do great on fruit and honey as my main carb source. I feel great and I have not been sick for over 7 years. In fact, I haven't even had a cold in over 6 years. I think the most important thing to do is to listen to your body. Once you get rid of the junk food, clean up your diet with raw foods, and clean your body up, so that you're in an environment where you're able to listen to your body and what it needs, you'll usually know right away if a certain food is affecting your health in a bad or good way. Some zero carb, raw paleo dieters may not agree with the fact that, for a post-workout carb source, I eat a good amount of raw honey with a good raw protein source and some wild bananas (I dont' eat seedless fruit), but that's because my dietary needs are completely different than the needs of someone who does not have the same kind of lifestyle and because my body requires an insulin spike after lifting weights. If someone is doing zero carb and it works for them, then great. Keep on doing it. Zero carb/very low carb diets have their place and work for different people, but it is not for me. It would ruin my health and my fitness goals.

General Discussion / Re: Hunza
« on: October 04, 2009, 02:57:07 am »
interesting article on the Hunza

I personally do not believe the whole article. It has some good points about their diet being higher in fat, etc., which I do believe, but I was shocked to read the part where it talks about the Vitamin B-17  "Cancer Cure Myth", largely because, growing up, my mother was very sick with a late stage of cancer and we actually sought out an alternative treatment program that used Vitamin B-17 with great success. These are the same people who will deny the clinics from all around the world who use B-17 and other forms of natural therapy with much success.

And then there is the part about the "Hunza Glacial Milk/Cesium Cancer Cure Myth", where they say:

"Some modern doctors are giving cesium therapy treatments to cure cancer, but cesium does not cure cancer."

So they're saying it doesn't cure cancer, even though modern doctors are using it to 'cure' cancer? Wow, makes a lot of sense.

General Discussion / Re: Grassfed bone-marrow
« on: October 04, 2009, 02:26:52 am »
Yeah, Tyler is right. I bought some bone marrow from the supermarket recently, and they don't distinguish on the label the types, so I ended up with all of the dry-crumbly type, whereas in the past I had been lucky to only get the creamy type.

Yeah, I saw some frozen marrow at my supermarket too but skipped it. I wanted to do more research on that because my main fat source usually comes from the fatty cuts of steak that I buy. Do you order marrow from Slankers? If so, did you usually get good marrow or the dry stuff?

General Discussion / Re: Grassfed bone-marrow
« on: October 04, 2009, 02:22:51 am »
I don't know about Slanker's as I'm from the UK. All I can say is that I've found wild deer marrow to be the best in taste.

I don't think Slanker's gives you a choice, but I should point out that the best marrow comes from the lower leg. The marrow from the upper leg is a bit too dry and bland in taste.

That sucks. I wish you had a choice at Slankers. So do you think bone marrow from the lower leg tastes better than suet and knuckle marrow? I just want to order the right thing and not end up ordering a bunch of food in bulk that is hard for me to eat, lol.

General Discussion / Grassfed bone-marrow
« on: October 03, 2009, 12:34:28 pm »
The organic grass-fed meat I buy is pretty good, but I am looking for other cuts of meat that I can't get. I usually just buy fatty cuts of beef and thats usually my main fat source, in conjunction with a few other fats. Anyway, I am thinking about ordering some food from the Slankers website that I have not yet tried. One thing I haven't tried is marrow. Which kind of marrow do you like guys best? I see lamb and beef marrow, which both look pretty good. Also, can you tell Slankers not to freeze your meat when you order from them?



As I pointed out, the studies damning saturated fats weren't really damning saturated fats per se but the glycotoxins present in cooked animal foods(which just happen to be quite high in cooked saturated fats). In other words, the results of all those  studies weren't wrong in themselves, it was just that the scientists had their definitions wrong:-

"given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-(saturated)fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGE!"  taken from:-
 Better to eat a diet low in cooked meat than a diet high in cooked meat!

Exactly. And there is also the problem with oxidized cholesterol that is related to highly-cooked animal food diets. To say that cooked animal products are healthy, while ignoring all of the toxins that are created in cooked animal food is just, I believe, pure insanity. After all, you can't trade one poison for another and expect good health.

Welcoming Committee / Hello my fellow meat eaters
« on: August 25, 2009, 10:59:57 am »
Hello guys and girls!

I just signed up for this forum tonight and am loving the little community that's going on here. I don't really know where to start, but I guess I'll give you the basics: I'm in my twenties and have been eating about 90% (sometimes around 75%, but mostly 90%-100%) raw ever since I was 18. I started out as a raw vegetarian and that's how I got into juicing, organic foods, natural living, etc. I've experimented with many different diets and nothing has ever worked as good as raw foods. Even when I was a raw vegetarian I still ate some raw animal fat (uncooked, unpressed, raw milk cheeses, raw eggs, raw fish). I have always been a big believer in raw saturated fat. Anyway, I've been eating raw meat for about four years now and I am only interested in taking the next step. As far as labels go, I don't know. I wouldn't put myself in a tight category, as far as my diet goes. Right now my diet consists of raw fruit (mostly berries), some wild (raw) honey, fresh greens, some plant fats, such as coconut and avocado, eggs, and plenty of grass fed beef. I'm about 98%-100% at the moment. I also usually drink fresh green juice every morning about 20 min before breakfast. I am a big believer in it because it works for me and has really saved my life in some aspects, since I started out juicing greens, after giving up all the junk. I see a lot of people on here who have different types of diets, where they have different macronutrient ratios, which is cool. Everyone should do what works best for them. I believe in getting the best from both worlds. I'd say my diet is a high fat, moderate protein/carb diet - even though my protein intake is much higher than my carbohydrate intake. I do mixed martial arts and I also do natural bodybuilding, so I pretty much just focus on eating a lot of high quality raw foods. Right now I am also into music and raw food really gives me that mental calrity that I need for experimented. Other than music, diet, working out and my job, I am also studying nutrition, micro-biology/biochemistry in college. That's about it. I think my main drive comes from the fact that I have a lot of friends and family members who are sick and have died from cancer in the past. I guess I just don't want to turn out that way. Anyway, I hope this post wasn't too long and boring.



Pages: [1]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk