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 ... 38
101
Primal Diet / Re: High meat question about lack of airing
« on: February 07, 2019, 01:12:22 am »
Well airing afterwards would not remove botulinic toxin if it is there (the thing that makes you ill), it would only remove botulinic bacteria which cause the toxin.

I don't know if this can be a problem with raw food or not. I haven't heard of any actual cases, only rumors thereof.

The eskimos have been burying their meat for ages and as a health supplement. It's unlikely that they wouldn't notice something bad with it if it's present.

Another possibility is that meat is somewhat aired even while buried.

102
Primal Diet / Re: difference between primal raw diet vs paleo??
« on: February 06, 2019, 09:10:09 am »
You can label a piece of cardboard "raw paleo" if you want. It won't be raw paleo just if you call it like that. If there are consumers that are stupid enough to believe what ever shit they are told, good for them. You can call pizza a sandwich. That won't transform the sandwich into a pizza.

Actually... I'm not sure there's a lot of difference between a pizza and a sandwich. Take a pizza and fold it over, then it's a cheese sandwich

103
Off Topic / Re: Spoilt Vegans...
« on: February 06, 2019, 05:54:10 am »
They're pushing the vegan agenda harder every day.

The waiter is not responsible for knowing what your crazy diet consists of. A reasonable vegan would ask what's available, and select from the list those things he wants, and ask the waiter to tell the cook to avoid any additives besides those strictly mentioned in the order.

104
Off Topic / Re: Spoilt Vegans...
« on: February 06, 2019, 01:04:17 am »
What's the relation to vegans?

The link you posted is about laser eye surgery

105
Primal Diet / Re: High meat question about lack of airing
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:59:49 pm »
AV said if you forget to air it, just air it again to keep the bacteria doing its thing, since you're mainly doing this to get beneficial bacteria anyway.

I haven't heard of any cases of botulism from raw foods. It's usually from canned cooked foods and the like.

Botulism isn't exactly a bacteria, it's a wasteproduct from bacteria. So it's a dosage dependent intoxication..

106
Primal Diet / Re: difference between primal raw diet vs paleo??
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:09:22 am »
You are making Primal Diet look great compared to the paleo diet. The paleo diet is not what you think. The paleo diet doesn't give you a meno or measurements about how much you need to eat. The paleo diet is a big mark, you need to choose what suits you best. Also, the primal diet isn't paleo at all.

I'm simply describing the tenets of each diet. If you think the primal one sounds great and the paleo one doesn't, maybe there's a reason why.

I also specified that I'm talking about typical paleo, of course other people can have different diets and call it paleo also, but it's not what most people doing paleo are doing or trying to do.

107
Primal Diet / Re: difference between primal raw diet vs paleo??
« on: February 04, 2019, 09:36:46 am »
The main difference is that each has a different interpretation of what a true paleolithic diet would be.

Primal by AV emphasizes low carb, high fat, high protein and low fiber, and includes plenty of dairy. It's very high in meat, eggs, dairy, green vegetable juices, coconut cream, moderate honey, and occasional fruits and nuts. It also encourages small amounts of fermented foods.

Typical paleo is high in sugar, high in fiber and moderate in fat and protein. With tons of fruits, a moderate amount of meats, some vegetables, some eggs, some nuts, occasional honey, and excludes dairy. Generally discourages juices and fermented foods.

The main criticism of primal by typical paleo adherents and others is that dairy probably wouldn't have been consumed by adults in the paleolithic era.

The main criticism of typical paleo by primal adherents and others is that fruits were rarely available except when in season, and in any case they wouldn't have been nearly as sweet as modern domesticated fruits.

108
Primal Diet / Re: Parmigiano-Reggiano
« on: February 04, 2019, 04:27:40 am »
That is partially true as some so-called "raw" cheeses  , such as "Pont-L'Eveque" are actually partially pasteurised.  But if one does one's research, one can find  genuinely raw cheeses.

Research isn't enough, you have to talk to the producer and even then they may lie or may not be sure how high the temperature gets during the process.

Even harder than finding raw cheese, is finding no-salt-added raw cheese. Most of the time, if buying cheese, you have to accept that some salt will be added during the process. Especially since the only commercially available natural rennet (as far as I know) contains up to 97% salt.

109
Primal Diet / Re: Parmigiano-Reggiano
« on: February 04, 2019, 03:25:14 am »
He also said most commercially produced so-called raw cheeses aren't really raw

110
Off Topic / Re: Can Raw Paleo help in overcoming Drinking Addiction?
« on: February 03, 2019, 07:51:07 pm »
Also, if you're going to drink alcohol, and if it's available or you can make it yourself, raw organic additive-free wine, mead or cider or other raw fermented drink would be preferable. (the source ingredients must be raw also, for the drink to be truly raw)

111
Off Topic / Re: Can Raw Paleo help in overcoming Drinking Addiction?
« on: January 31, 2019, 05:07:02 am »
Addictions mostly have to do with learned behavior and the people you hang out with (or dont). But yes, a healthy diet will help you feel more balanced and you won't need drugs as much. If you do continue consuming them, they will be less damaging because some of the harmful effects will be offset by your healthier diet.

AV recommended kiwifruit for treating all drug addictions, including alcoholism.

Also, tell your friend to eat some fats up to 2hs before and up to 2hs after each drink, this will reduce some of the damage from alcohol. A couple eggs might be enough.

Also, this is one case where you do want higher amounts of water than usual, to wash away the alcohol (if only because you won't be able to hold the large volume of urine in your bladder, and be forced to empty it more frequently, thus reducing reabsorption)

112
Primal Diet / Re: Raw dairy fat versus raw dairy protein digestion
« on: January 29, 2019, 08:12:35 am »
That is during the whole day, not in one meal, and only as the maximum for large people. And again, raw honey is not the same as sugar, like I said.

You can probably try this yourself. Get truly raw unheated honey or honeycomb and eat a substantial amount on an empty stomach as a mono-meal, and see what happens. Then calculate how much sugar in is that honey, and another day eat pure white sugar (or with a little water to make it a paste and not so dry), and see what happens. You'll get vastly different results.

113
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.

114
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.

115
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.

116
Off Topic / Re: Antibiotic side-effect
« on: January 29, 2019, 05:55:25 am »
Thank you Derek

117
Off Topic / Re: Antibiotic side-effect
« on: January 28, 2019, 06:29:00 pm »
I mean actually black.




118
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.

119
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.

120
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.

121
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?

122
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.

123
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.:-
https://www.ancient.eu/article/875/pets-in-ancient-egypt/ . 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_cuisine#Class_constraints 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.

124
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:-  https://myria.com/animals-when-were-cats-first-kept-as-pets

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:-

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.

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.

125
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.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 38
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk