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 - dariorpl

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 37
Primal Diet / Re: Raw dairy fat versus raw dairy protein digestion
« on: January 29, 2019, 07:54:20 am »
I calculated the total amounts for daily eating from his book The Recipe for Living Without Disease.

Between the frequent juices, milkshakes and honey-butter-egg combo formula, the amounts for recommended honey intake are between 43 and 64 grams (2-3 tablespoons) for smaller people, depending if they have a fruit meal or not (higher honey amount if no fruit), and 100 to 142 grams (5-7 tablespoons) as the maximum for larger people (again depending on if they have a fruit meal during the day or not or not).

From this, you could substract 15-44 grams (1-2 tablespoons) from the total if you're not adding honey to vegetable juices. He did this mainly to preserve the juices for 3 days. And he did begin recommending lowering total juice amount later, especially for ex-vegans.

I suppose you could add a little bit to the honey total if the honey-cheese combination is eaten, but that was a supplement for people with mineral deficiencies, and again it was 7-14 grams of honey (1-2 teaspoons) max. And it would likely replace on of the other honey-including meals, anyway.

Primal Diet / Re: Raw dairy fat versus raw dairy protein digestion
« on: January 29, 2019, 07:18:37 am »
'we' like to think that honey is special and doesn't act like sugar in the body.  Get a blood glucose monitor to test that theory.    He wrote that whenever he traveled butter and honey always accompanied him on the plane. I don't remember the ratio having just a 'tiny' bit of honey, maybe you can easily find the quote..  My guess is that wasn't the only time he consumed it.  For I keep reading from you, honey with this and that.   He loved his honey and butter, and now I guess it's with cheese too, 'as one can't digest dry cheese without it.'

I'm pretty sure raw honey makes my blood glucose go down if eaten alone in significant quantities. It's so bad my stomach hurts. I know other people who get the same symptoms.

I can find plenty of records for how much honey people should take according to AV. Amounts were usually measured in teaspoons. Only in very special cases did he recommend large amounts of honey, the maximum being 3/4s of a cup over the course of a day for diabetics. And he called this an enourmous amount.

Primal Diet / Re: Raw dairy fat versus raw dairy protein digestion
« on: January 29, 2019, 06:05:48 am »
Sorry to be so repetitive, but each time I see someone here recommending honey butter combo, I will say again, fat and sugar will glycate ( stick together ) in your veins.   One can read up on it by going to Ron Rosedale's site.   As a treat, no problem, as a food source to be eating regularly, not good.  I don't care how often AV appeased himself with it.

Truly raw honey doesn't act quite like sugar in the body. Also, it's only a tiny bit of honey and a lot of butter - and not as a foodsource, but as a complement to your food, which might be meat or eggs/milk or occasionally fruit.

In any case - about the constipation AV said dry cheese can't be digested, you only have a little bit of it to absorb toxins, unless you mix it with a little honey to make it digestible. And AV didn't really have much to say in terms of preventing chronic constipation, other than your body will learn to digest foods properly eventually. For him it took 30+ years of eating raw before this happened.

Off Topic / Re: Antibiotic side-effect
« on: January 29, 2019, 05:55:25 am »
Thank you Derek

Off Topic / Re: Antibiotic side-effect
« on: January 28, 2019, 06:29:00 pm »
I mean actually black.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 27, 2019, 05:17:56 am »
I wonder how many generations it takes  of eating RVAF to fully get rid of the negative effects of  cooked foods?

Why wonder? Look at Pottenger's studies. It takes 3 generations.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 27, 2019, 05:10:01 am »
yes, you can create explanations, still sounds quite suspicious to me.

I don't see what's suspicious about it. Domestic cats today that are fed cooked foods are still sick. Humans are sicker than ever. If your parents are 70+ years old, chances are they also grew up eating a significant amount of raw animal foods, besides raw plant foods. So you're first generation raised on 100% cooked as far as animal foods go. Yes you can do "fine". Look at the people who's parents are younger than that, and you can see that they have poorer health on average than our generation. And you can also see that our generation has poorer health than our parents, even though we largely gave up smoking and other harmful toxins which they had plenty of.

the comment on pro athletes;  we tend to put too much value on raw.  animals and peoples can do just fine on cooked, especially when not eating junk.

Most professional athletes are fed primarily grains, sugar and synthetic drugs/hormones to increase training results and performance. They break down fast. Most have to retire by their mid 30's or even sooner. Athletic performance by itself is no sign of overall health.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 26, 2019, 08:29:09 pm »
This is quite frankly a waste of time. I spent ages writing text on a smartphone on this nonsense as my PC was out of order at the time. Basically, my scientific and other evidence provided in this thread has been extensive whereas  dpl has merely provided poor scientific studies on rare occasions and mostly just  religious-fundamentalist opinions on raw dairy. No point in continuing. Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nichts anders.

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.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 26, 2019, 08:25:22 pm »
your logic is only partially sound to me.  he said that they couldn't reproduce.  But they have reproduced for generations extremely well. 

All of the studies he did, together encompass around 900 cats total. Only a fraction of which were on 100% cooked for 4 generations straight. This is a small sample size and it's perfectly possible that all of them were unable to adapt to cooked foods. However, when you take a sample of hundreds of millions of cats, and slowly introduce them to cooked foods in incremental stages, there is the possibility for mutations that enable them to better handle cooked food to arise. And those are the ones that survived and are today able to survive a 100% processed, commercial cat food diet. They don't thrive though, they have plenty of disease problems still. They just manage to survive and reproduce before the illnesses kills them.

Do you think most pro athletes grew up on predominantly raw food?   The examples I could give are many.

What does that have to do with anything?

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 26, 2019, 11:32:18 am »
I'm not saying animals don't live healthier eating raw, but Pottengers' study seems flawed to me in that 95 percent or higher of cats in the US eat Only cooked diets and live respectable lives in terms of health and go on and have little reproductive issues, contrary to what Pottenger is trying to point out.   What am I missing here?
   IF,,  I'm not missing some important key factor, may I then point out how eager we can be to want to believe in the 'magic' of raw, as if it's going to save us from death.

   *All my pets have eaten entirely raw forever

You're missing the point that cats have increasingly been fed a higher and higher, up to 100% cooked diet, for many generations since the time of Pottenger's studies until now. So due to selection, the cats that are left, are able to cope with cooked foods better. But they still develop plenty of health problems. Also notice the morphology of the bones, the head in particular, which became deformed in Pottenger's studies under cooked, and most domestic cats exhibit this type of diseased morphology to this day.

And no, Pottenger didn't believe in magic. He started studying something else altogether and only started feeding cats cooked and raw as a coincidence, it wasn't his plan from the beginning at all. Once he discovered the effects, he kept studying that.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 26, 2019, 10:23:17 am »
No , I also showed a direct correlation between introduction of raw dairy consumption in the Neolithic era and a corresponding drop in bone-health/bone-strength in Neolithic-era peoples.

Doubtful at best, and it could be only correlation. Can you show that raw dairy consumption corresponds with bone deterioration given the same level of technology and cooking/processing of food otherwise? I doubt you can. The Pottenger studies certainly showed the opposite for cats. As did Weston Price's investigations for humans.

Also, you cannot see the forest for the trees, as you keep on whining about raw vs pasteurised when many other issues exist. Take the calcium issue, since calcium is more absorbable when in raw dairy, it follows logically that it is more harmful as regards excess calcium than pasteurised dairy.

Blah, blah, blah. You keep claiming that calcium in raw milk is an issue with no evidence thereof. All you have is a hypothesis and simple inference based on national reports of consumption/sales of cooked dairy in various countries (I don't think they even looked at total calcium consumption, only dairy consumption).

How do you explain the fact that the Pottenger studies showed that cooked milk and cooked meat deteriorate bones, but raw milk and raw meat heal bones in cats?

Then there are the hormones in raw dairy, and the fact that becoming infected from raw dairy consumption is far more likely than re consumption of pasteurised dairy.

There are also hormones in raw meat and blood. How come they're not worse for us too?

Pure drivel on your part. I had already pointed out links re Pottenger's meat study which proved my point.

Not really. As I said, the studies showed that a fully raw diet heals all disease slowly over the lifespan and increasingly over the generations, whereas a cooked diet generates and worsens all disease slowly over the lifespan and increasingly over the generations. They showed this regardless of the ratio of milk to meat being 1:2 or 2:1. The studies also showed that having simply 1/3rd raw was not enough to counteract the detriments of the 2/3rds cooked diet.

Milk being raw and of good quality was so important that even in the 100% raw groups, if the milk came from cows that received supplemental feed of irradiated yeast (supposedly for added vitamin D), the healing health effects were severely diminished. Likewise as the milk went from raw to pasteurized to processed milk concentrate, the damaging effects of each step were incremental, not only in the overall health of the cats but also in the nutrients able to be absorbed by the plants growing in the area where the cats' excretions were deposited.

I asked how dumbI already pointed to evidence of cats being kept as pets  as far back as 9500 years  ago at least. People would not put mere domesticated animals into the same grave as their human owner, but they would indeed put that human owner's favourite pet in the same grave.

Pure nonsense. How do you know what people thought of when they buried an animal with them? Plenty of societies buried all sorts of things with the bodies, including ornaments, clothes, coffins, trinkets, religious symbols, weapons, armor, food, flags, etc. Were all these pets too?

Likewise, pet ownership in caucasian majority countries is universal nowadays and few if any people actually bury their pets in the same space as the owners.

Also, cats aren't ideal hunters of  rats, for example - that is why people who want to kill rats prefer to use terriers, among other more suitable dog breeds for that purpose.

Nobody uses cats to hunt anything. That's just a gross misunderstanding. Dogs can be used to hunt rats during the day, owing to their superb sense of smell as well as their pack hunting brain and the ability to submit to their human owners and help them in whatever they can. In some areas people do this even today for food. But nobody was going around hunting mice. There's barely any food in a mouse. The point is not to catch mice for food, but to reduce mice populations because mice will eat up your grain stores and multiply, leading to a growing problem. Not to mention the hairs, saliva, urine and feces of the mice will taint your grain as well.

Cats don't have as good a sense of smell as dogs, and they don't have the pack hunting brain nor the submissiveness of dogs. What they do have is eyes that are wonderful in low light conditions, and since mice are most active at times when it's dark, cats are perfect for reducing the mice population. Also, cats will hunt mice on their own without you needing to do anything to either help, command, train, or incentivize them.

Oh, and Ancient Egyptians kept all sorts of animals as pets(such as hippos,crocodiles etc.:- . Hippos and the like do NOT make suitable domesticated animals.

I'm not gonna keep reading through all your hundreds of links without you at least providing some sort of explanation or reasoning. I keep showing you that you misrepresent much of the content of even the links you yourself post, and you just ignore it and keep spamming links.

Oh, and the ancient egyptians did not only regard cats as pets but also had an egyptian cat-goddess, Bastet.

Medieval Europe had plenty of lion-like depictions in their banners and shields. In much of India today, cows are sacred. It doesn't make them pets.

Regardless of what they believe in, they have the right to criticise various dodgy aspects of the studies.

And I still showed you how their criticisms were unfounded. Yet you disregard my points and focus only on their "rights". I was only adding that to show that you're using the same arguments as the people who want you dead. You're even citing their claims as true. In this link, it shows that the upper classes in the Middle-Ages mainly went in for  meat and many other foods due to the extra variety signifying higher social status, as well as the greater cost, not because meat was viewed then as being superior.

That could simply be a convoluted way of saying that it's healthier. The fact remains that when they could afford it, they'd eat mainly meats, with very little grain.

Oh, and the romans were only decadent and degenerate near the end of the empire.

I believe they were rotten to the core from the get-go, as all agricultural democratic societies are. But it does take time for the decivilizing process to degenerate the society to the point where the fundamental problems become visible.

It shouldn't be a surprise that vegetarianism, publicly praised rampant homosexuality and other anti-life, totally degenerate behaviors arose and flourished in these places.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 19, 2019, 12:29:32 am »
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.

  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.

How dumb can you get? We've been through this time and again, you can say whatever you want is "the issue" or "the focus", but when all you can show is a correlation between cooked dairy consumption and bone problems, that in no way implicates raw dairy.

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

Quite the opposite.

  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:-

It seems you don't understand the difference between pet keeping and domestication. Cows are domesticated animals, but they're not pets. Likewise, whoever wrote the study is calling cats "pets" with no evidence whatsoever that they would be considered pets. In fact in the article itself it mentions that people kept cats not as pets, but as a means to control rodent infestation. Which makes sense because mice are primarily grain eaters, and ancient egypt and china were the first big mostly grain fed societies.

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."

That's written by people who will tell you to feed your pets dry pellets of processed food. The foods were the same whether raw or cooked, so the issue IS cooking, and whatever "nutritional deficiencies" cats had on the cooked diet were caused by the cooking, not by eating different foods. Likewise, cats were selected at random for each group, so keeping track of age, sex, health condition and so forth is irrelevant as it would even out over the 900 cats that were used for the experiments.

Easily disproven with links:- (most Romans would have eaten 70 percent at least of their diet in the form of cereals and beans. shows that upper classes also ate lots of grains, and so on and on.

The romans were a decadent, degenerate society, so it could be that they were foolish enough to prefer grain over meat. In medieval europe, however, meat was regarded as the superior food. Even your own link mentions that people didn't eat more meat than they normally did because it was expensive, and not due to a concern about health.

at that point he couldn't even walk, let alone hunt.  It's a bullshit story made up to create a following wanting to believe he has special knowledge and thus can heal others when nobody else can.

What makes you say he couldn't walk?

And it's an inspiring story nonetheless, and the point is not that he has special knowledge, but rather that raw meat heals while vegetables and fruits alone don't. Also, it's about trusting nature and instinct rather than theories developed by bad scientists which are employed by evil corporations and governments.

General Discussion / Re: Best Organs to eat outside of Liver and Heart?
« on: January 17, 2019, 10:29:57 pm »
I guess even just killing an animal could be considered processing.

It would depend on how it's done.

By the way, when I said lamb, I meant veal

Primal Diet / Re: Constipation or better absorption when eating High Meat
« on: January 17, 2019, 08:21:51 am »
Are you eating the same volume of food? Could it be that eating high meat makes you eat a smaller amount of food overall?

Also, how many times has this happened?

General Discussion / Re: Best Organs to eat outside of Liver and Heart?
« on: January 17, 2019, 04:02:29 am »
One of the reasons I favor thymus is because only young animals have thymuses. By the time a human is 50 years old their thymus has shrunk down to less than 10% of it's maximum size. The same is true for cattle at a much younger age. Supposed to be the gland of youth. I ran out yesterday and have 10 pounds defrosting that I will slice as soon as it thaws out a little more and refreeze the slices in baggies to make smoothies out of.

Thymus is often sold with the name sweetbread, or neck sweetbread (the other sweetbread type coming from around the heart). In Argentina, sweetbread (both types) are more expensive than any cut of beef/lamb, although it's always grilled or sauteed.

Next to my Ninja blender, my slicer is my most useful tool for processing meat. Did I just use the word processing? Does that mean sliced and blended meats are processed?

Technically, yes. But not all processing is equally detrimental.

Health / Re: Thoughts on appendicitis and appendix removal
« on: January 17, 2019, 03:52:53 am »
According to doctors like mercola (alternative medicine, but still suggests appendix removal in most cases), if what you have is even an issue with the appendix, it's likely a mild form and it will heal itself eventually without the need for any interventions.

As far as I'm aware, regular doctors wouldn't be too concerned with the symptoms you're describing, but you may want to research that more.

In my experience what doctors do is get you to panic at the slightest thing, and think it could be the end of the world, that way you require their treatments to prevent a catastrophe. If nothing tragic occurs thereafter, they claim credit for saving your life, even though they have no evidence to suggest that had it not been for their treatment, you would in fact have died.

General Discussion / Re: Best Organs to eat outside of Liver and Heart?
« on: January 16, 2019, 11:55:13 pm »
Raw tongue has huge amounts  of raw fat in it which  is , imo, very healthy. It also has plenty of vitamins and minerals in it, like any other raw organ.

I do not think that raw organs are necessarily "better" than any other. However, in the past, when I had some trouble with my heart skipping beats etc.,  I used to eat a lot  of raw, organic 100% grassfed ox heart, which seemed to help, after all "like cures like".

Veal tongue tastes amazing to me, even if coming from low quality animals.

I find it funny how vegans often suggest eating things that look like an organ to help that organ. Like they'll say eat walnuts because they look like brains. It never dawns on them that they should try actual brains.

Off Topic / Re: Antibiotic side-effect
« on: January 16, 2019, 11:49:40 pm »
Could this be what causes beef tongue skin to be partially black also?

Does anyone know if this happens with grassfed, antibiotic free cattle?

But the whole additional coyote nonsense makes it clear he was spouting tall stories. Since when do wild coyote packs give humans raw meat? I could understand a coyote stealing from human garbage dumps etc., but this is ridiculous.

When he says they gave it to him, that's for brevity. Read the version from his book, We Want To Live. The coyotes were actually hunting along with him, or at least they might've thought so even if he didn't realize it. Coyotes aren't wolves, they will take outsiders on a hunt frequently. And of course some of them could've been domesticated stray dogs who were already used to humans. This is a plausible story.

In any case, after fasting for so long, he could've been hallucinating. Especially since he had consumed hallucinogenic drugs a little before that time.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 15, 2019, 12:39:15 am »
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys.

Epidemiological studies are pretty much the same as surveys.

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

By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against  asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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

As for the casein and wolves milk, that's just a hypothesis with no backing. I also believe the story of children raised by wolves is likely fake, but not for that reason.

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.

Nobody claims that cats are humans. Pottenger certainly never did. It is interesting, however, how you bring up animal studies when they suit your biases, but discard them when they don't.

And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium.

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.

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. 

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

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.

Not harmful, insufficient. Some people think drinking water is good for health. It would be ludicrous to propose that they show a 100% water diet is good.

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.

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

  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. 

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 .

   It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful.

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.

Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection.

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?

It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health. 

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.

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.

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

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.

I didn't say they ate no meats. But they ate plenty of grain. Keep in mind that the best quality meat, such as wild deer, was only for the rich.

And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.


Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:36:36 am »
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.

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.

Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy.

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

Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all.

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

Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

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.

The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans.

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.

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:- "  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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans.

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.

You probably don't even realize it, but you're actually making my point when you say cats and humans have pretty similar digestive systems.

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.

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.

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 -

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.

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:-

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.

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. *sigh*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:43:30 am »
There are of course many other problems with raw dairy, such as the hormone factor and the unbalanced calcium:magnesium ratio. In my own case, I found that dairy consumption greatly weakened my teeth pre-RPD diet(in fact I would have lost all my teeth in another year if I had not switched to an RPD diet), and that a diet consisting only of raw animal foods led to a sudden looseness in my teeth after just 3 weeks on it.

In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I had the same problem when consuming vasts amounts of what I thought at the time was raw dairy, but it might not have been. Some of my teeth became loose and I could move them a little. After stopping the consumption of dairy, the looseness in my teeth went away.

My teeth continued to get worse since then, on a diet of mainly meats and fruit, but the looseness hasn't returned.

I intend to try dairy again once I can find a reliable source and be certain as to the quality of it.

Another thing that might have damaged my teeth was the copious amounts of lemon juice I was consuming, sometimes up to 1 liter or more a day. Although I stopped that a while prior to stopping the dairy consumption.

Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:34:25 am »
No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess  calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue. 

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.

Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-

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.

Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk.

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.

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). 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.

Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible..

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?

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

The  fact is that  if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones  as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.

They did. Again, Weston Price.

Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.

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.

Off Topic / Re: another famous vegan youtuber stops veganism
« on: January 09, 2019, 08:31:54 pm »
The emotional reactions of intense sadness, empathy and feeling like some great injustice is being done at the sight or thought of an animal being hunted or slaughtered for food; is a mental disease / psychological disorder. From this stems vegetarianism.

Veganism is even worse, feeling the same things also at the sight or thought of a cow being milked, a bird's egg being taken, or even at extracting honey from a bee hive.

I would postulate however, that if you have one of these mental diseases, it's best if you abstain from consuming said foods until you're able to solve the issue. So it's not vegetarianism or veganism that is the mental disease, but the emotional reactions that lead you to believe that it's wrong to use animals for food.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 37
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk