You could probably do a raw diet that uses some the principles but would lack significant components (like the idea of balancing muscle meats with collagen/gelatin, or of including those other foods which need to be heated or processed in other ways). Other than the obvious non-paleo forms of foods, many things can at least loosely be linked with anthropology (even the elements to the drugs) but related more in the same way AV employs all kinds of foods (and in this case, things hardly even food) as tools. So on that side of things, its not going to translate to paleo. I've heard people throw around the idea of doing a 'paleo' version that is basically just a high carb fruit based paleo diet, but that really seems to be missing the mark of what he is getting at, at least for people fixing things and not replicating how people in nature ate. I've seen it thrown around that eating meat raw is seen in the W.A.P. literature as lessing the need for colagen, so that might be one feather in the cap for raw meat eating (as long it doesn't contain raw PUFA of course!) particularly if it is consumed with alot of plant based sugars in the diet also.

Some stuff seems sound but even with a leap of faith with the foods  ...other things seem a bit off ("no such things as an essential fatty acid"). My take generally is that no one person has even the bulk of these things figured out, and most people could probably refrain from constantly jumping from one weird ass diet to another, but there are things there to explore and think about. A basic criticism is there isn't alot of back evidence that people do great on coke and asprin, but there is for meats and fats and plants for what thats worth.

Well, what I'm getting from it is basically he says you need to correct the underlying problem (poor digestion, possibly caused by hypothyroid/low metabolism).

At the same time, it seems you've hit on the one part that I would almost deffietly agree with, that no matter how pure your food sources are, that if you stil have those underlying problems you can bet your wheels are spinning (or worse) with whatever perfect intake. These things regulate the healing process, so its a non starter when they are broken without the added attention. There are a few folks that were on this forum that are way into this "diet" (if there is such a single thing) and would concure with that I imagine.

clearly seems a little rigid..but may cover some perhaps neglected bases. If it was me, I would move most of the non raw meat/eggs fat stuff till one meal at the end of the day. Also, would it compute more to just drink the coffee after morning arisel ritual?

I'm imagining your vest says personman.

Personally, I think Phil and GS were on point with more than a few things but i'll give my own (long) go.

Lets say the Inuit are in fact the heathy (known) model for human intake, and that if they were in a less harsh environment and had a nice computer and relaxing lifestyle and had whatever advantageous medicines or other treatments that exist as helpful (if they exist), that they would have had it even more made. We would have to account for the following:

- Inuits would have had some degree of supplemental plant foods part of the year and likely didn't skimp on them. Blueberries in blubber bowl anyone? Maybe the simple idea is that plants foods (possibly eaten in large amounts) at least part of the year is part of the program we are given here, and all months with no plant foods is not.

- Their intake of all wild foods is going to be vastly different than ours even if we today eat all wild food - type, quality, and pollution. Eating organ meats likely is a huge degree better than muscle meats and water, but it still might not actually mirror their complete intake of whole animal parts. These likely required some types of processing that are either known or lost in time. Also, that whatever people ate on the African plain ( and whether they ate seafood or not ) seafoods or other animals today that we have access to make up for more of these nutrients than ONE animal from 1-2 farms of the same grasses. What I see, is that even on 'ZC', there are simply alot of other non-significantly-carb contributing foods that are not being considered for much of any reason than what should be food, even if these things are known to hit certain nutrient needs.

- They were removed from many aspects of modern problems/poisons/also whatever AV shit one wants throw in that needs to be corrected - which may be a pro or a negative to long term VLC - unconfirmed. Possibly short term pro, long term negative.

- Many people have made a pretty simple observation/opinion about VLC in that it seems to work better for people who are overweight but not always as much for people that are consistently lean. Lets say that has any truth to it, dissecting that, if one is of the opinion that the way of nature is to fatten up on carbs over the summer to store for the winter, it can be seen as very likely that year after year of not having that process or excess fat might in itself be a problem. Gaining fat might be a natural or modern corrective response to something, added to the likelihood that Taubes is just flat out wrong. * Inuits tend to be fatties
( by our modern bias anyway - certainly not under 10% bf)

other stuff:

- LC is now widely reported to have tons of benefical effects on the immune system that may be short lived and then be a problem. The allergy thing is a flag generaly for low carbers because poor response to allergens generally go away when one goes on VLC but may return due to these same theories regarding VLC and the immune system. I've seen enough anecdotes to attach this to raw eating of any variety (so maybe that means its good! not ). It could be eating organs and raw food and way cleaner food than meatza every day discounts many of those issues, but perhaps not all. Just a few missing nutrients or not having those periodic glycogen boosts may esclate as larger problems than they conceptualy do on paper.

- compared to regular people not doing a bunch of harmful things in itself always has alot of advantages, couple that with a very convincing argument about our origins and the poor conceptual effects of sugar metabolism shows for a pretty good case. The thing I think which needs to be more commonly thought about in all this stuff is that missing some components that even "regular people" actually get, can be detrimental no matter how right in theory the idea is. This seems to be true for any kind of dietary exclusion, fruitarian to standard (not particularly low carb) paleo eating I imagine. What I learned from the vegan days is It really doesn't matter what people didn't do in the past because much of what we think about the past is likely wrong and its very easy to see people thriving while generally doing the opposite. When in the lurch with the pure ideas, It wasn't that I listened to the wrong people who had the wrong misconception about what our natural diet is, its that I lost touch with how I evaluated what was healthy or not as a complete package. This made me in turn give more signifigance to those ideas than they deserved. It seems like that isn't your problem, but perhaps making sure that some other system has to be as completely verifiable/logical as VLC is with our origins and others' perspective evidence...is . Sometimes you got to suck it up and make pinhole glasses - again, hocus pocus man, maybe eat some candy.

Milk has indeed been on the planet since before humans and primates and is literally one of the ONLY foods designed to be food other than fruit. Eggs and meats clearly are not designed in any way whatsoever TO BE food, but humans invent tools in order to exploit those sources from the environment as food.

This argument seems foolish. Whether or not we humans rationalize whether a food was designed for consumption means absolutely nothing to the body.

hrm?  its not an argument at all, its a fact. Seeing since I have not at the point of writing drank (mammal) milk regularly for maybe a decade or more, its a pretty unbiased use of fact. It indeed proves nothing about what is edible or vital or ok or not-bad.

milk is a whole food that flows right from one being to another. This is a factor of which increased intelligence likely saw could be interrupted. But anyway, even though the milk is meant for the feeding of the young (exclusively, anyone should admit) in a similar way, the egg itself - as it exists whole In the world - is not meant to be eaten by the offspring. It contains it of course.

But the irony is the very idea that milk is not meant to be eaten by others is pretty much the same idea that animals are not really created to be food, even though they are food for many other creatures.

The thing for you is, is that its going to be pretty hard to decode symptoms or true problems (particularly long term) from yours or others' dairy consumption. What I said is just to accurately counter a simple phrase people will utter about how they see nature that supplies 0 real evidence about what types of things we are adapted to or not. So its a problem to base a discussion around that  and whatever experiences they have had + whatever innaccurate studies on people that ironically their own 'paleo' and 'raw' theories themselves would make clear are automatically unhealthy specimens to test such things as healthy or not, but stubbornly not so present in people in nature.

---
This isn't to suggest that dairy is even good at all, its the typical BS around these issues that is worth pointing out, regardless of what people choose to eat. Its just incorrect thinking about wellness or even anthropology in my opinion. This is particularly a problem if it is within an environment that does not encourage experimentation, true free thinking, and has some set answer/all the answers for everything (even when they arn't actually so rational/logical)...don't you think?

The "play it safe route" would involve not eating dairy products, but then you are then automatically more in the category that will assume that eating some contemporary version of "naturally" is supplying all your needs as a modern human or as a human at all , as these perfect ancient humans may have done quite a few things differently than we guess about here.

hey KD, have you tried one arm unassisted pulls/chins?

My body is built pretty well for chins but not so much for 1 armed ones.  I hover around 160 with small bones and pretty big arms I guess so the length of my body (6ft  ~1') isn't a huge issue with chins but seems particularly awkward for one-arm.

Anyway I tried some at my pad with a  low doorway pullup bar (usually I do chins on a angle grip at the gym). I used my left and I had to grab by my forearm/wrist with my right hand. I did 10 reps basically in a row but I did drop down somewhat as it is super awkward and I don't like tucking my feet anyway.  Maybe with practice I could do that many 'for real' or more.

I've now been doing alot of isolated stuff for biceps too like EZ-curls and using a split rope with a pulley system. That seems to be increasing my strength pretty quick along with the deads/chins (and weighted chins) etc... that are still primary.

Well the people that say all products of domestication are bad and that eating eggs and nuts and fruits and such acquired from the wild are at best seasonal and that we should only eat things we retrieve ourself locally that involve no tools or processing to acquire or store, they win of course.

In all seriousness, some of the above truly are not as important for day to day health than perhaps the possible consequences of dairy and other things. Its pretty clear tho that certain interventions are presented by someone as having less consequences depending on what they see is important or "natural". Some of these labels are indeed meaningful and some more meaningful than others. MIlk is a product that is natural but the acquiring is indeed "un-natural". Its a "proper" Neolithic exploitation of materials that requires no technology per se or processing but requires a somewhat more advanced social structure and species -than, say chimps - to confine and breed animals.  With a domesticated egg still by definition being 'more paleo' than milk even from a Purdue chicken butt I suppose.

Its equating these labels and distinctions with implicit absolute health ramifications i'm not quite sure is actually scientific. Keep in mind always that the more curent subjective take on what correlates with health dropping though the ages (if this is even accurate) isn't just automatically associated with the actual products of the Neolithic/agriculture etc... but also every other possible change these things contributed. people arent giving enough 'credit' to agriculture = less travel/variety and less meat or crowding/contaminated water etc... They just think grains = bad. This other focus is indeed mostly where the current consensus currently lays in science.

Speaking of which they have these sea otters that use rocks as a tool to hammer abalone shells (at a rate of 45 blows in 15 seconds, not quite accidental) and I wonder if any theorist has ever put it together that abalone is not really what these sea otters should be eating. I mean, no other aquatic seal mammal is doing that shite.

Good call. But is is different as milk is a whole food that flows right from one being to another. This is a factor of which increased intelligence likely saw could be interrupted. But anyway, even though the milk is meant for the feeding of the young (exclusively, anyone should admit) in a similar way, the egg itself - as it exists whole In the world - is not meant to be eaten by the offspring. It contains it of course.

But the irony is the very idea that milk is not meant to be eaten by others is pretty much the same idea that animals are not really created to be food, even though they are food for many other creatures.

But certainly seizing eggs falls under the natural understanding that all complex matter (meat or 'products' from most creatures)  is usually soaked with nutrients of some kind, and is a omnivore's and carnivore's main innate primary desire to have these satisfied in usually whichever way a species is intelligent enough to obtain them.

Re: calcium, it is just one minor example. I really dont think anyone truly knows about these levels but the problem I see is assuming that if we don't do X than we have our bases covered for any number of things. That we can quote certain people (and not others) and not take into account whatever practices they actually were doing and just assume because they didn't do X that anything we can come up with that is 'more pure' is surely better.

Whatever the amount of calcium is needed, we need enough. There are indeed arguments among experts for both high and low levels of calcium, so neither one truly has authority there - is the point. From what I've read, its possibly correct that calcium doesn't play the role we think in bones per se, but the unfortunate thing is it plays a role in quite a alot of other areas. google: "calcium organ calcification" to find info how low calcium can actually cause tissues to calcify despite the 'alt' claims. Just another hypothesis (not fact), that may be reason to not unilaterally slam the possible need for calcium/neolithic food where we arn't getting these things other ways. Defaulting back to what was possibly doable, without actually being honest to what people did or what health they truly had..as being akin to glamorizing more current HGs, was more the point than "we should eat dairy for calcium" - of which I don't know is true and can easily believe is false.

---

I'm on board with saying HGs weren't at some peak of health, but really the 99%  of people that actually share your opinion are not at all the paleo community who rationalizes not drinking milk and loves saturated oils, but those who think these groups are incredibly backward and "In The Dark Ages", NOT for the minimal amount of cooking and processing and "neolithic" activities.  My point generally is at least HGs could exist and reproduce on their diet in nature without modern convenience.  I often use myself as an example of some person who even with my 100% raw food delivered to me on a platter, that I could not likely live where I am living outside year-round without succumbing to some likely decrease in my health that would slowly (or quickly) become unsustainable.

hmm yeah, I do have a poor habit of  pointing out that whether we are talking hgs or athletes or movie stars stars that people's health is NOT determined by the current ammount of neolthic food or heat-created-toxins in their diet, but a number of far more improtant factors.

Somehow it is offered up that you can actually prove these people are not healthy by suggesting these things MUST contribute to  poor health in the ways a few people self defines it, and i'm always foolishly asking for evidence that shows these (modern or ancient) people have any actual health issues due to these practices.   Anyway, I think more accurately, what I have suggested is that even if diet is the MAIN factor that we need to critcise how these diets people construct with modem food (even raw) are healthier than other diets, with an assumption on my part that most of these other blanket ideas about what is healthy , obstruct people from actually constructing a healthy diet that has anything to do with how anyone ever ate in nature.

I don't even care about dairy really. The issue that people want to suggest is absolute: that there is no way we can improve on our diet over the centuries is a unscientific (as in - not sanctioned by most scientists), unreaslistic philosophy illustrated very well with dairy adaption among other things. As well as the the data suggesting  the correlation of unhealthy people with" lactose intolerance" (which almost always is not actually lactose intolerance) to be absolute, and not in any way the opposite. As these things are linked to healthy hormone and enzyme levels all around and improve together with health.

I think what I have implied in the bulk of my posts here actually is that hg emulation ( paleo OR modern) will likely yield way worse results for a modern person than EITHER group. Their conditions and others factors are indeed huge bringers of health that we can not retrive or micmic unfortunately and thus even if either diet was perfect, people need to do EXTRA things than what was done in the past, not mimic or remove bad habits or make assumptions that things that don't even stack up are adequate, like is constantly being suggested. If people want to prove those things they promote are "good enough" or have the gall to present themselves as healthier than HGs, they - in my book - do indeed need to prove it with actual measurable results, not suggestions that HGs 'had to be unhealthy' because they did what such truly little evidence suggests is unhealthy.

I think people don't condone the idea that AV and others claimed that as long as milk was raw it was suitable to eat for everyone as the basis for a natural diet. Which is a totally legitimate skeptical place to be.

Some people actually believe that other nonsense about what 'all animals do' or that the entire world would be better off if we all wore short-pants made out of shells and never figured out how to do anything of any significance.

---

I really dont know if milk or other dairy products are completely healthy. I do know that adult humans can generally live off milk longer than on water, single fruits or lean meat which indeed proves without question that maturation of an organism has nothing to do with the ability to absorb a wide spectrum of nutrients from milk. Also that it ironically exists as one of the only natural 'whole foods' found in nature next to fruit and the animals which can be eaten whole and not bought in foam containers.

If milk is detrimental (which is possible) people need to find direct links of problems in traditional people's that consumed dairy, not combine a bunch of backward ideals with experiences of modern people seeking health, who may have had multiple fixable problems in consuming dairy foods. Which is not all AV hocus but also noted by other researchers as being hormone and health related in terms of ability to process dairy. Meaning that these underlying issues do not necessarily get better sans dairy consumption.

Like many others we could name, Martin is probably right about some of the BS people try to pull from alternative camps (like us), and probably wrong in regards to many things that are indeed important to health. Likewise we can be wrong a lot there too.

The emphasis on calorie-in-out thing which is now MORE popular is pretty perplexing to me. Clearly tons of overweight people just do not eat a lot and likely have some kind of issue which could be described by AV or Graham accurately as some kind of toxicity. Likewise many people that are unwell and underweight its the same (or worse) issue and can eat tons of healthy fruits and meats/fats and not gain any meaningful weight (muscle or even fat in some cases). Also worth noting is the general difficulty in adding mass on a raw diet, particularly if it does not include dairy or starchy carb foods or carb foods in general (which I am sure he would heavily agree).

I havn't found that raw food has elimated my need to eat basic calorie quantity like all the original gurus I followed promised, but I have noticed I tend to eat less than alot of people here describe FWIW. No miracles there tho, just using the food normally I guess. Like Martin has pointed out sometimes people arn't even honest with themselves about their intake, so for then for the record its possible I eat more on certain days than others.

In regards to food quality, I'm probably one of the few raw folks who will admit someone could improve not only their physique but also their health eating garbage. Sometimes more so over healthy food. The catch is long term there is likely still consquences. No matter how strong your metabolism and hormones and such are and how efficient you are at storing or getting rid of fat, you arn't going to elminate all the 'toxic' qualites of pizza and such IMO. Its still worthy of discussion which WOE (independent of food quality) help these things along, as many people spin their wheels just trying to avoid "bad food" and justify some crappy diet that does nothing for either performance or health.

I think its good to be reading that stuff and this kind of stuff and trying to put together what makes sense.

hmm. Not sure who these 50 kg lean mass males are but yeah Rosedale's recommendation (as listed here) is certainly extra low.


Somewhere between that and the massive amounts of protein many people choose to eat is probably right for you. If you are not sedentary its likely further from this range above.  Take into account this is in reference to a diet designed to run on ketones/fatty acids. Even so, the way I understand it, some protein will be converting to glucose regardless so more is often needed. Also the liver and other organs can deteriorate rapidly on low-protein diets so I don't understand how 50 g or less would be ideal to produce adequate glucose or reverse aging.

The lowered protein, way high fat that some people do, may or may not apply to people that eat higher carb, higher protein diets.  However, despite what one would think about our ancestry, eating lots of muscle meat in particular (free of fat, organ, collagen, and other aspects of whole animals) is likely not good and represents a boat-load of not only unbalanced macro-nutrients, but dietary amino acids and internal hormones. This is in addition to being linked to other oft proposed issues of excess unused protein.

I would stick with at least 70-100 g a day (which one basically can achieve on a low-fat high carb whole foods diet adequate in calories) and cap off at the point that protein is in excess of structural and exercise needs which likely won't be higher than 1 g per lb unless you are super active/muscle hog etc...


---

lets say the LBM is more like 70 kg and therefore "desired" protein is 50 g (or less)

200 g deer meat
250 g suet
10 g wild goose liver

yields a diet with ~ 50 g of protein, 2400 cals, and 91% fat.

bon appetite :/

There was a thread here on edible portion/weight for bone marrow. Your $6/lb is really entering filet mignon prices for animal food when realizing how little of that weight is edible. If you have a 'budget' of any kind...I wouldn't really buy it unless fat is just a small amount of your intake. On a fat based diet, maybe if you are eating an already fatty steak that is fresh, buy some fresh marrow - type of thing.

Scott Wheeler  (Who is one of the main AV acolytes these days. Dude really knows his stuff) seems to part somewhat with AV on freezing..in terms of how damaging it is anyway [search his site for: "bone marrow"]

"Eating frozen bone marrow is not harmful but most of the nutritional benefits will be compromised. The same is true for meat, although muscle meat is less likely to contain stored toxins so conventionally raised is acceptable occasionally."

---

IMO, sources of collagen, fat, and fatty organs (which likely freeze well) or otherwise (liver,glands etc..)... that have been frozen being deemed as "not harmful but lacking x benefits" by basically extremists, translates to me in non-primal-speak as "we don't know how much benefits are lost (or increased) with freezing". Odds are, any variety achieved through these foods (even frozen) is better than 'supplementing' your diet with only seafood, eggs, fruits/veggies, or even wild muscle meats IMO...as these nutrients are NOT the same.

- Probably not a good idea to eat ANY kind of grainfed fats/organs etc...of course.

That said there can even be arguments that freezing maintains nutrients. Largely the issue for most folks is the"problematic bacterias", but here you have Wheeler at least saying that really isn't much of an issue.  If one doesn't find themselves totally sensitive to frozen foods, probably ok to keep them in regularly.

...Years later if one is still on the diet one can stress more over such things and compare/contrast.

Just my take.