https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6637711/Red-processed-meat-taxed-given-cigarette-style-health-warnings-doctors-warn.html

While HG tribes were no doubt healthier than modern, settled peoples, it would be a real stretch to call them healthy, per se. For example, the stress-free lives of settled peoples alone counts for the greater health of wealthier city people, regardless of diet or pollution etc.

It would be interesting to take the offspring of the most awesomely athletic cooked food specimens, and raise them on a totally raw diet for comparison?....until then all we can do is speculate on these matters

Might backfire. There was that epigenetics study comparing 3 generations of humans, which showed that if the grandparents  smoked, then the grandchildren would have a much higher risk of asthma etc. even if their parents did not smoke. I wonder how many generations it takes  of eating RVAF to fully get rid of the negative effects of  cooked foods?

Tell yourself whatever you want. You're starting to sound like cherimoya kid. We're in a raw foods forum and you're saying that cooked foods are better. You didn't provide any substantial scientific evidence for your claims, just tons of links that you expect me to go through, many of which contain plenty of errors in your statements about the claims therein. And you rejected the scientific evidence that I provided purely on the basis that it doesn't suit your biases.

Deeply hypocritical a remark on your part. And I did not state that cooked foods were better in general, merely that they were in many ways(not all) "less worse" than raw dairy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6629577/Woman-lives-New-Zealand-wilderness-hunting-washes-hair-URINE.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6630221/Depressing-moment-water-bird-offers-mate-potentially-deadly-scrap-discarded-plastic.html

I’m a little confused on what exactly fresh is. Are we talking fresh as in right from the animal the day of or what? I’m currently making high liver and I keep reading I need fresh liver. I bought organic GF beef liver from a farm store. It looks like is was flashed frozen. Will this work?

Well, all I can state is that my own 2 or 3 attempts to make high-meat from prefrozen meats failed to generate the desired effect. Raw, fresh meat is usually hung in chilled rooms(2 to 4 degrees Celsius) for some weeks prior to being sold(3 to 4 weeks for raw grassfed meats, as I recall).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6610227/Im-Celeb-avoids-Ofcom-probe-cruel-Bushtucker-trials-involving-stars-eating-live-bugs.html

Epidemiological studies are pretty much the same as surveys.

And again, it's all from cooked dairy consumption.

I already pointed out that  the issue was poor bone-health caused by excess calcium consumption, the issue of raw vs cooked is not just irrelevant here, it is bogus. You see, the calcium in raw dairy is far more absorbable than with pasteurised dairy, thus making raw dairy far MORE likely to cause poor bone-health than pasteurised dairy.

No. Pottenger's studies clearly proved that raw dairy is health giving while cooked dairy harms health and causes all sorts of disease and degradation, which intensifies with each generation. You can say it's only so for cats, and not humans, but you can't say cooked and raw are the same.

Wrong again.  I had already pointed out re Pottenger`s meat study that the inclusion of raw dairy did not counteract the presence of cooked animal food given in the test as well. If raw dairy were genuinely healthy to cats, then one would have expected some evidence that raw dairy could counteract the effects a lot.

Lol? We are talking about food consumption, not grafts and transplants.

Your absurd contrast was simply countered by my taking the piss as well. Anyway, the point is that raw dairy of whatever kind is designed specifically to feed the infants of one particular species. As we see re humans, adults gradually lose the ability to digest lactose as they get older, anyway, so that is another factor. Raw cows`dairy is best for calves below the age of weaning and that is that.

Pretty irrelevant. But in any case, was this cooked dairy? 

    http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=120246 Yes, it was from raw cows milk. Pasteurisation kills the stuff.

Nobody claims that cats are humans. Pottenger certainly never did.

  Pottenger  implied it, and you made all sorts of bogus claims that cats were just like humans.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. "focus" is irrelevant when all the source data is coming from populations consuming cooked dairy only.

  The issue of raw vs cooked is only 1 issue among many. In this case, the focus is on excessive calcium. Now since calcium from raw dairy is more absorbable than from pasteurised dairy due to lack of heat, one can convincingly argue that raw dairy does not provide good bone-health at all, given the various studies. That is, so far, no evidence shows that pasteurising dairy makes the calcium in it  highly toxic in particular , to bone-health.

Are you now saying that raw dairy is worse for health than cooked dairy?

  In this one instance, re excess calcium, yes.

The studies showed that cooked milk causes disease and degeneration while raw milk prevents disease and slowly cures it and regenerates health.

  Wrong. The studies showed that including raw dairy did not counter the negative effects of cooked animal food.

Cats were not domesticated to be kept as pets. People back then were much more practical. If they kept an animal around, there was a material, tangible goal to it. The whole notion of keeping a pet for its own sake didn't develop in great numbers until the 19th century, and it didn't affect the masses until the 20th century .

  That is, of course, nonsense, as cats were kept as pets in ancient egypt and there is solid evidence for cats being kept as pets 1000s of years before that:-  https://myria.com/animals-when-were-cats-first-kept-as-pets

Sure. but if the animal's health is only a little bit worse, but you get much more healthgiving milk out of it, then it could very well be worth the tradeoff.

    You are, as usual, missing the point. If the raw milk is even slightly infected,  well, it`s very easy to get infections from raw dairy. Not worth the risk.

I didn't say its the same thing. However, there is the possibility that it's even better in some cases. For instance, do you prefer to eat wild leaves with their high toxicity, or domesticated varieties where breeding has significantly lowered the toxin loads?

  No, human dysgenics has always been a bad idea. Humans do not eat raw leaves as a staple of their diets so that example is bogus. Also, the excess sugar in domesticated fruits is bad for us whereas wild varieties have far less sugar so do not contribute to obesity, diabetes etc.

By that definition all human activities are unnatural, including hunting wild game. It's not simply the being natural or artificial that makes something improve our health or damage it. It's a little more complicated than that.

  Grossly wrong example as hunting wild game is perfectly natural - our palaeo ancestors did it, so do many other wild species

Again, Pottenger's studies showed that no, cooked dairy helps cause tooth decay whereas raw dairy does the opposite.

  Wrong. Taken from skeptvet:-  "Yes, Pottenger’s study comes up often in discussions of raw diets. Though not bad for his era, his work with the cats is pretty sloppy by modern standards, and there is not enough information in his published writings to determine crucial things like whether there were differences other than cooking between the food the two groups received, whether the groups of cats themselves were different in terms of condition, health, age, sex, and all sorts of other relevant variables. And even from the information that is out there, it is clear that neither group received an adequate diet, especially in terms of taurine, not discovered to be an essential amino acid for cats until after Pottenger’s time. So his work cannot legitimately be regarded as scientific evidence in favor of raw diets, though it is often cited as such."

 

No.

Easily disproven with links:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_dining_in_the_Roman_Empire (most Romans would have eaten 70 percent at least of their diet in the form of cereals and beans.

https://healthandfitnesshistory.com/ancient-nutrition/medieval-european-nutrition/ shows that upper classes also ate lots of grains, and so on and on.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6589687/Vegans-storm-ethical-grocery-store-protest-hurl-abuse-customers-staff.html

They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.

All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys. By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against  asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.

Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.

  I had simply pointd out the obvious that meat is not the same thing as dairy, whether raw or cooked.

And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?

  A foolish analogy  as meat is not the same thing as raw dairy. Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems.

It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class. 
   

  Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because  wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.

How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.

  It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals. And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium. Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue.

This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.

  Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful  as 100% of the diet.

The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.

  Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of  a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.

No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.

  Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats.

You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.

   Irrelevant, really. What we need to convince you is a study of cats fed on cat milk compared to cats fed on cows milk, all raw.
[/quote]

That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.

  It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful. For example, I have heard of mothers transmitting diseases to their babies via their breastmilk.

Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.

  Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection. It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health.

I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.

Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.

  Cows milk is a ruminant milk. To get healthier milk, one would have to drink chimpanzee milk as a human. As regards babies,  most humans gradually develop more and more lactose intolerance over time as adults, as adult mammals are not supposed to be drinkng milk, however raw, past infancy.

Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.

  Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health. I am suspicious of WP as he was very selective in his photos. I mean, given a lack of dentists and the incidence of disease and famine, it is impossible for more than a few HGs to have had perfect teeth throughout their lives.
[/quote]
They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.[/quote]  It at least shows that raw dairy is so useless as a health-food that it cannot counteract the consumption of cooked animal foods.

Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.

This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters  and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago.  And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6573635/Controversial-food-additive-used-bacon-makes-lazy.html

Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.

Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid  scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.

This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?

We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.

Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy. Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all. Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.

The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.

They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.

You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.

The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans. Cats may be mammals but do not have much in common with humans. The studies also  did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr.  In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.

Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume)

  Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.

Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.

Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans. Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed. And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within  a 2 year period - human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:-

http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf

How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers? 

In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption.

No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.

They did. Again, Weston Price.

*sigh* The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.

Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.

In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.

All classes, even up to  middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.