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:- " 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.

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

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.

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:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/


https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/

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 http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/  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
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ 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.

  The whole text was based on the dangers of excess calcium, not on the issue of raw vs pasteurised.

Precisely my point. They use problems from pasteurized dairy to attack raw dairy.

Your suggestion that raw calcium is somehow magically protected from wearing the osteoblasts out is dodgy and not yet supported by any science.

There's plenty of science supporting it. Including Pottenger's vasts studies on cats, as well as Weston Price's studies on indigenous peoples. Not to mention the simple fact that all mammals fed their raw mother's milk develop much better bone and teeth health than those fed pasteurized or cooked milks. You claim this is because it's the mothers' milk, or milk from the same species. I'm sure this has benefits. But it could just as well be the cooking of the milk that causes most of the problems.

Dead wrong. The whole point of the palaeolithic diet is that  Neolithic consumption of grains and raw dairy led to vast ill-health in humans. Bear in mind that, prior to pasteurisation, dairy was mostly drunk in raw form. Also, bear in mind that scientific evidence shows that palaeolithic-era skeletons all had much stronger bones compared to Neolithic-era skeletons, yet palaeo HGs did not consume raw dairy unlike Neolithic-era HGs. So, clearly, raw dairy consumption leads to weaker bones. Also, consumption of grains and (mostly raw) dairy led to significantly decreased average height, plus may have been responsible for the c. 10-11% drop in average human brain-size.

None of this proves that raw dairy was in any way part of the problem, that is simply an assumption you make on zero evidence. For all we know they could've been even worse off without the raw dairy and consuming more grains and cooked meats/vegetables instead.

Grains were consumed by all social classes in Neolithic times.

Hard to say if that was in fact the case. And even if it was, it might be in moderate amounts like we see in later periods.

Here I was imagining a piece of meat covered in wheat bran lol...

They're chemically extracted, and probably about as harmful as artificial ones.

What hadezb said.

Also,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxvszzgYRjU

(sorry I couldn't find a version with better sound volume)

Molds and bacteria become particularly dangerous when they've grown in a toxic environment

Toxins will often be stored in the organs when the animal is unhealhy. Particularly the liver. If I had to guess I would say the problem is that these foods likely had a high toxin load that your body did not want to handle. It could even be that the animal had just received medication of some sort prior to being slaughtered.

AV has warned that organs from conventionally raised animals will often cause these problems when raw. It's not that cooking them gets rid of the toxins though. In fact it makes it so that instead of eliminating the toxins quickly (which is what you got), they are stored in your body. But you just don't notice the reaction being as strong.

AV took a different approach, at least for baths. Rather than filtering, he'd add things that would bind with the toxins and prevent them from entering your body through your skin/lungs, as well as pull toxins from your skin. He recommended using a little terramin clay and sometimes a little milk.

Most filtering would probably improve your water quality, assuming your water quality is bad (tap water). If you have decent water, some filtering methods could even add toxins.

For example, most shower-head filters designed to remove chlorine while keeping a good flow are made of heavy metals. Yes, you'll get rid of the chlorine and some other toxins, but you could be adding something even worse.

As I understand it, carbon filters restrict flow too much to be convenient for a shower-head installation.

Some of what I've read suggests that filtering should be done centrally rather than at the shower-head if you want it to be effective and safe. But of course that is more expensive, and you can't take it with you when you travel.

Another tragic story.

The worst part is that most of the time, money is not the main reason why a diet is bad.

Have you started eating more raw foods? And did anything change with your symptoms?

https://imgflip.com/i/2n2ufz

Great, so all we're gonna get is mocking for someone who was decades ahead of the rest of the scientists of his time, and who was likely murdered for his contributions, but no recognition that he was on to something.

AV had been saying for many years that E.Coli and other bacteria in our intestines feed the brain.

He said high meat helped with that as well.

Some of his most extreme followers have even gotten to the point of occasional coprophagy as a means to acquire vast amounts of these brain feeding bacteria.

What confuses me is that he says sprouts generate enzymes that prevent you from digesting nutrients... But fasting for 3-5 days would not kill you...

Unless he meant eating only sprouts but drinking no water either... I think this is probably what he meant.

Either way, I don't think it's meaningless that you only made it 1 day on only sprouts

When I was doing a vegan diet back in 2010, I regularly ate raw sprouts but I found I could only handle a small amount and mixed with other foods, and even then they tasted like soap.

I wouldn't necessarily put a lot of emphasis on what "sproutarians" claim, being that I know of several people who claim to live on sungazing or just air ("breatharians"). I knew one of them personally and he got very thin on his "breatharian" lifestyle. He was faking it to some of his friends and when they weren't there, he'd pig out on high calorie foods.

I think it's more of a process. The more heat and the longer the exposure, the less raw it is. It may also vary by the type of food.

Paleo people may have ocasionally eaten sunbaked meat, but we have no reason to assume that they would set meat out to bake in the sun on purpose.

It makes more sense to take the carcass in the shade where it's more comfortable on a hot sunny day.