I was raised by a mother who introduced me to a semi-weston-price diet(ie lots of visits to restaurants offering wild stagmeat/wild boar meat etc., plus her home-cooking was pretty good as it included lot sof (cooked0 organ-meats, so, by the standards of modern diets, it was pretty good.  Food at private school was bad, but what made things worse was that dairy was widely available at school and at home( as was bread). The result was that my health deteriorated over time - all because general modern dietary guidelines all heavily recommend dairy as a health-food when it is a pure poison for many. If I'd never touched dairy in my entire life, I suspect that I would only have started deteriorating, healthwise, from the age of 40(I would still have had issues with some processed foods , though, such as additives/chemicals etc.)

That said, my family members have pretty much  started deteriorating after the age of 40, some before that point. My oldest brother had an accident with an electricity-wire causing the loss of both his feet so that he needed artificial legs. He was in great pain for the rest of his life, having to take pain-killers and various drugs(eg:- cannabis etc.) to kill the pain. He died at the age of 28  as a result of an accident, not as a result of his injuries, though.

Then there's my doctor uncle:- He openly sniggers at my diet, yet at the age of 68/69, he's in appalling shape. His joints are so f*cked that he had to, on one occasion, crawl, like a baby, up the steep steps of my Italian home when returning from the beach, because he'd forgotten to take his pain-killers. He also, like all of his generation, has to take endless artificial supplements to make up for the deficiencies in his so-called balanced diet. His daughters are in their 30s and all 3 of them had their beauty fade very quickly after the age of 20 or so, the result being that they tend to overuse make-up. Normally, women only have their skin deteriorate re wrinkles etc. at the age of 30, but, no doubt due to eating processed diets and bad genes, they deteriorated faster than others. Same goes for their mother who goes in for huge numbers of supplements such as coenzyme q10, but these have done nothing to slow down her aging.

My mother is in better shape than my uncle(her brother), even though she's older than him by 7 years. However, the primary reason for this is that she loves starving herself, practising caloric restriction. She also eats lots of plant-food(cooked minimally) which helps avoid the buildup of toxins caused by eating lots of  heavily-cooked fat-heavy animal-food.

My other aunt and uncle are both riddled with cancer and are mostly vegan. Their daughter is quite healthy for her age(49?) with their son's family having childhood asthma etc., because the son's  wife insists on smoking heavily and taking her kids to McDonald's all the time, because she hates cooking etc.

Oh, yes, and my father died at the age of 70, hugely obese, and riddled with diabetes, dying of a heart-attack.. He ate the usual bad foods such as grilled meats, potatoes etc.

Re 1st sentence:- that wasn't what I was saying.

It is a fact, though, that the Eskimoes had astonishingly good health by comparison to other hunter-gatherer tribes, and, given that they lived in the harshest possible environment on the planet, that is quite impressive. The fact that they ate more raw animal food, and therefore less cooked-food, than other hunter-gatherer tribes and the fact that the Eskimoes didn't touch dairy or grains(pre-Contact) is also of interest. Since there are plenty of other populations which eat/ate broths and soups, and are extremely unhealthy, it's unlikely that broths and soups are useful re health.

I signed up, but there seems to be a problem. It keeps telling me I have a problem with my password and to reset it. But even after I reset it, it still gives me the same error message

Did you input the access-code?

They were studying fats in general. Butter was shown to be extremely harmful when heated, re its very high content of AGEs.

I find it difficult to believe that it's impossible to get hold of raw fats. I mean, even if one lives a 1000 miles away from the nearest farmers' market/grassfed -meat-butcher etc., it's still possible to order raw fats(well OK, usually prefrozen fats) via direct delivery from farms. It doesn't even have to be a farm from one's own State/region as the containers are filled with ice-packs etc.

And Pemmican was never meant as a health-food, it was just meant to be used as travel-rations to tide one by.

Pemmican as I make it is raw meat mixed with rendered fat + dried seawater. Heating the fat has no effect on health, it still qualifies as raw paleo.

As I pointed out on the other forum, heating fats creates toxins in large amounts(re creation of advanced glycation endproducts) so it DOES have a decidedly negative effect on health. And pemmican isn't rawpalaeo.

Don't worry about it. If on a Primal Diet forum, don't criticise Aajonus as that won't be tolerated, don't do any harsh critiques of raw dairy. It'll be OK to mention in passing that dairy, however raw, gives you the shits etc, just don't stress the point all the time. No doubt someone will suggest it's all detox and all you need is some obscure remedy such as putting raw honey in the raw milk etc., but you can just ignore that.

My interest is merely in encouraging the growth of more raw animal food groups online as that makes it easier for newbies to access all the info available online - so it doesn't matter too much if there are other forums centred around raw dairy or whatever.

Italy, according to online reports, only has 2% of its food-industry as organic - while this may seem like a lot, compared to some other countries, most of that organic food involves organic grains, which is useless for a rawpalaeodieter. Plus, most organic farms are situated in the south of Italy.

(forwarded from primal diet yahoo group)


aloha all,

i just started a new social network for adherents of the primal diet,
since the first one seemed popular but fizzled out due to lack of an
administrator.

I am inviting everyone to sign up at your leisure on primaldiet, a
social network for this group and its members.

On primaldiet there are loads of powerful and fun tools so you can
stay in touch with other members. Please come and join me at:

http://primaldiet.socialgo.com/

This network is private, so please use the Access Code

*more butter*

when registering.

The trouble with the recommendations re dairy is that it's estimated that c.75% of the world's population are lactose-intolerant. Then there are those who are casein-intolerant, those who have galactosemia(where inability to digest harmful dairy causes brain-damage and, eventually, death) and the many people who've had various auto-immune disorders as a result of drinking dairy(goats' dairy may have lower lactose-levels but still causes plenty of problems for raw-dairy-sufferers like myself, given all the other harmful substances in non-human milk). The argument that raw dairy is healthier is highly dubious - all we have is Weston-Price's vague, totally unsupported assurances. The simple fact is that we are the only species which drinks milk from another animal, and, bizarrely, the only species to drink milk past infancy. Milk from one's own species is specially adapted to that particular species.

In short, I'm all in favour of infants breastfeeding on human milk, re mothers breastfeeding/wet-nursing, but anything else is a bad idea.

I'm afraid that this theory is completely wrong. For one thing, lactating females do not store the milk in their breasts, for practical reasons. Instead, what happens is that the breasts' glands are stimulated into producing milk by pressure from the offspring, and the animal has to be alive for this process to occur. So, strictly speaking, any milk consumed from the udders would be either nonexistent, or extremely microscopic if a female animal had just been feeding its young.
It's a myth, incidentally, that raw butter is the only dairy that isn't harmful. ALL types of dairy are harmful, it is simply that butter doesn't trigger as severe and instant a reaction in a number of people(though it does with many others), and the long-term effects would still be deleterious to health, as butter still contains some casein and lactose, not to mention other harmful aspects of dairy.

I get the impression, Avalon, that you must be "on something", judging from the above!LOL!

As regards cooking, all I will say is that humans have done many stupid things over the last million years or so, with no real justification for them - cooking could well be one of those things. As regards cooking itself, the argument re taste is only 1. Other points have been made that cooked-food is addictive, due to its opioid content, so that that explanation is as good, if not better, than the taste aspect, and taste, anyway, is , to a large extent, determined by habit.

Anyway, my point is that cooking could not possibly have contributed to science in the way that fire did. I believe the lamest possible excuse, given by pro-cooking-advocates, is that cooking forced people to sit around and socialise more, because they had to waste so much more of their free time cooking their food, once cooking became a widespread practice.- and this is claimed to have been "a good thing".

It is ridiculous to argue that cooking was the most important invention as there is no clear benefit from it(the argument re cooking leading to bigger brains has been totally refuted by now, so there's no other justification for it). However, there's a pretty good case for fire being the most important human invention, though that is by no means the same as cooking. I think you're just confusing the two.