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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 38
Off Topic / Re: Article recommending avoiding washing once a day
« on: April 19, 2018, 05:37:26 pm »
That's very interesting sabertooth. Basic soap is a mixture of some fat/oil and lye (sodium hydroxide, AKA caustic soda, a chemical used to unplug drains). I always wondered if the fats alone might do some good, since it's the lye I'm worried about.

The jerky is just for keeping it. It won't be the same as fresh, but it'll make sure your meat doesn't rot for a very long time, and can easily be kept at room temperature. Just make sure to drink liquids or eat other fresh foods when eating it.

I don't know of any methods to undo rotting, except letting it go high in a well airated glass jar so you can have it much later on. But I would make sure this is good quality meat before doing that.

I do wonder what would happen if making jerky out of rotten meat. It might make it more easily digestible for you. The flies will be all over it though, so make sure your fan is really powerful, or put a metal mesh screen around it to keep them out, unless you don't mind them being on your food.

There are also methods that use a combination of drying and controlled rotting to produce special products such as salami. But they usually call for heavy salting.

I would avoid cooking rotten meat, too. That might be dangerous. I know that meat that was cooked from fresh and then rots is dangerous, so it might be that having raw rotten meat that is later cooked also is dangerous.

If you're new to raw, I suggest eating only fresh, until your body is well used to the higher bacteria count. If you're not 100% or close to 100% raw, or if you're not mainly meat based, I would avoid meat that isn't fresh.

It won't harm you, but it may not be the most pleasant on your digestion.

If possible, try buying smaller amounts so you finish it before it starts to rot.

There are other methods of preserving meat for longer periods without freezing it. Sabertooth, goodsamaritan and others hang it in the fridge so moisture is unable to collect and the surface is always dry. Doing that it should last longer. If your refrigerator can be set to a temperature of around 4C or 2C, or to lower humidity, this may also help.

Also, thicker cuts rot more slowly than thinly sliced pieces, since meat rots from the outside in.

Another method is to dry it out, turning it into raw jerky. Simply slice it thin (or make very thin plates from ground meat), set them on a rack and place a fan blowing air onto them. Sunlight or wind may also help. You might want to do something to keep flies away. This can turn meat into jerky in a matter of hours.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Raw starchy vegetables
« on: April 19, 2018, 06:38:40 am »
I prefer bland fruit if I want fiber, as most of the fiber there is soluble, whereas most of the fiber in leafy greens and tubers is insoluble. I don't think we're meant to be consuming large amounts of cellulose, that is for hervibores.

Have you tried this? Tomatoes, cucumbers, bell peppers, etc.

There are some starchy fruits as well, such as squash/pumpkin, which you mentioned, very unripe green bananas or plantains... Actually almost all fruits are starchy when unripe, it's just a matter of how palatable you can make them...

Usually if I want raw starch, I go for corn on the cob, carrot juice, or beet juice. Celery juice is great too but it contains very little starch, I have it more for it's refreshing and cleansing (detox) properties.

Off Topic / Re: Article recommending avoiding washing once a day
« on: April 19, 2018, 06:20:16 am »
If you've been on a healthy raw diet for a while, you can get away with not using soap, or using it only a few times a month. It also depends on where you live and the types of clothes you wear, the climate, how much you'll be sweating, etc. Also, there's a difference between reducing bad BO that other people around you can sense from a distance, to the type they can sense when you're in direct physical contact.

Lemon juice or whole lemons can be used as an alternative to body soap. It's not as effective, and it's too acidic to use on a daily basis, but it does the job. For deodorant in the summer, I use AV's recommendation of sundried lemon peels and pulp, ground into a powder. It works.

My main concern with soap/detergents (most of what is called soap nowadays is actually a detergent which combines many chemicals) is not that they remove the skin oil, that gets replaced pretty quickly. The problem is the toxicity inherent to them.

I've heard Iguana talk of the soapnut/soapberry. Perhaps that could be another alternative.

As far as everyday people who are not so squeamish about chemicals and stuff, and who have much worse BO as a result of a poor diet, the recommendation of only using soap for problem areas on a daily basis, and using it all through the skin on a weekly basis, seems like a good one. Their skin often gets overloaded with fat soluble toxins that water alone won't easily wash away and they can be reabsorbed; and soap can get rid of them.

Off Topic / Re: Arguments used against vegans
« on: April 19, 2018, 01:00:09 am »
You can actually save money if you move (permanently or temporarily) somewhere where most of your food comes from animals you hunt yourself. Paleolithic humans didn't have any money :)

I agree with you that commercial sources are likely to dry up or become illegal, but for the foreseeable future, there will always be plenty of other sources that are far too removed from urban areas to attract massive hunting.

If your complaint is that where you happen to live, there isn't much wild game around, that's more a matter of your location (and with most heavily populated areas, that is the case), but you shouldn't extrapolate that to the whole planet.

Off Topic / Re: Arguments used against vegans
« on: April 18, 2018, 08:13:05 pm »
There's no contradiction. If and when the billions become interested in wild foods, of course there will be very little wild food around, and it will be a luxury few will be able to afford. For now, there is plenty of wild food around, if you're willing to go out there and hunt it yourself.

Btw, have you heard of Svalbard? If you can handle the cold, it's one of the best places in the world to hunt such delicacies as reindeer, seals, walruses, artic foxes and even polar bears, all perfectly legal. Plus, taxes are some of the lowest in the world and you don't need a visa to stay for as long as you want if you're a citizen of one of many countries that signed the nordic sovereign treaty (includes Austria and the UK).

Off Topic / Re: Arguments used against vegans
« on: April 18, 2018, 09:25:01 am »
LOL I will ignore your psycho tendencies.

Yes, health is worse now than ever before.

But knowledge of how to reverse the trend in declining health is increasing quickly, albeit only in a small section of the population, but when the rest wake up, the know-how will be there for them.

And as we always disagree on this, an increase in the population is not a problem. People have been using that argument to predict economic catastrophes at least since the days of Thomas Malthus, Circa 1800 AD. And arguably, since the beginning of time. The decline in health has nothing to do with so-called "overpopulation". At least not in a direct causal relationship.

If your particular interest is in wild game, fewer and fewer people are interested in such delicacies, and a result, access to them is more widely available now than at any other point since the beginning of mankind. Yes, there is much less wild life in the planet, but you have so little competition for it, that you can't complain about there not being enough.

What you seem to be complaining about is not that there is no wild game left for you to hunt, but that nobody seems willing to hunt and sell it to you (or it's been made illegal). I definitely share your concerns, but what could possibly be the reasoning behind blaming *that* on overpopulation?

(I will add a caveat, when it comes to fish and other marine animal lifeforms, it's true that there is much less available worldwide, and there is plenty of competition for it, however, modern technology has allowed us to fish in a vast portion of the oceans that were never available before, and to the extent that the catch is not frozen or sprayed with chemicals before you buy them, they're arguably also more available today than at previous times, although they're likely to become more and more expensive as time goes by --- with river and lake fish, the situation is even worse, as these are often so contaminated that it's not worth it to eat them anymore, however wild they might be)

Off Topic / Re: Arguments used against vegans
« on: April 18, 2018, 08:18:42 am »
And yet the technology that all that concrete has enabled is making it possible to examine and plan to revive most of the essential living standards that made paleo life superior, and which largely haven't been seen for most humans for thousands of years.

And even the megaurban areas we see today are largely a result of government action.

Suggestion Box / Re: A subforum on food production
« on: April 18, 2018, 06:15:02 am »
A  more descriptive name for it could be "Food Acquisition" or "Paleo Food Acquisition". In description it could read something like "The where and how to obtain quality food sources, whether you are growing them, hunting them or buying them"

Off Topic / Re: Arguments used against vegans
« on: April 18, 2018, 04:23:49 am »
The radical militant vegans fail to recognize that pushing veganism for everybody is the most cruel lifestyle, because they're being cruel towards humans who cannot be healthy without consuming animal products.

The only way to claim that such is not the case is by equating animal suffering with human suffering. But even that argument would fail because you cannot be truly compassionate toward others if in doing so you are being cruel towards yourself.

Suggestion Box / Re: A subforum on food production
« on: April 18, 2018, 04:09:09 am »
That sounds like a wonderful idea.

Yeah, I was thinking that it could even cover topics such as where to buy the best quality paleo foods and how to identify them and differentiate them from lower quality ones (after all, in the modern world, most of us are paying for food)

I was watching a documentary a few days ago, which included a guy that can taste the difference in a cooked steak as to whether it came from a female or male bovine, how it was fed, and the age of the animal. He gave some pointers on how to identify each. I think this should be much easier when the meat is raw.

Hot Topics / Re: Fruitarian interview in DM
« on: April 17, 2018, 06:30:50 am »
Some good side effects:
-got an incredible sense of smell, bad in a way, as many smells are really bad

In my experience, it's not that vegans have a better sense of smell, but that they are more sensitive to strong smells.

A raw paleo person can detect faint smells they're not used to, such as tobacco or cannabis smoke, or cooked foods, much more easily and from further away than your average vegan or raw vegan.

But whereas the vegan may be disgusted even with the smell of their own food after they're done eating it, the raw paleo person isn't bothered by this as easily.

Suggestion Box / A subforum on food production
« on: April 17, 2018, 06:21:45 am »
I was thinking that there should be a forum dedicated to how to best get our food.

It could cover topics such as farming, keeping livestock, hunting wild game, fishing, and gathering wild foods, and how to best accomplish these in accordance with paleo tenets; or how to modify mainstream practices in order to more adequately reflect a paleo lifestyle.

I often find myself wondering about these issues, and I think many of you also have thoughts and questions to share about them. It's hard to know where to put them when there isn't a specific subforum for them, and it's also hard to find the threads using simply the search function.

. Not really. I know many, many people who easily avoided military national service in Austria , making up the most bogus of excuses. Admittedly, this was in peacetime, but a coward can easily fake enough ill-health etc. in order to be put well behind the front lines.

It's not a coward who refuses to fight in an unjust war. Actually, the coward is the one who does everything he's told without even questioning it, for fear of punishment.

Not remotely valid, as that very change has nothing to do with genetics but is said to be solely due to the sudden rise in food-intake in modern times. Obviously, someone with a larger brain is going to suffer in more ancient times when famine was far more likely an occurrence.
Height has also increased in modern times due to a lack of famine

And likewise the smarter and taller ones who survive pass on their smarter and taller genes on.

BUT we are still shorter than our palaeo ancestors, despite this. The point being that to get back to the brain-size of Cro-Magnon, and especially the Neanderthals, we would need significant natrual selection and the like to do get to that point.

This could be the case, although this wouldn't indicate that the dysgenic effects are as terrible and as pressing as what you think. That said, I remain highly skeptical of the theory that says that neanderthals and cro magnon were much smarter than us. I could accept that on average, they may have been slightly smarter, but they didn't have the raw numbers to produce unlikely geniuses like we have today, which are the ones who truly move civilization forward. If they were so smart, why did they all die out? And why didn't they produce technology like the kind we have today? Or are you saying that they did have such technology, built the pyramids, ruled over us, and when they got tired of playing god, left the planet and went for the stars?

The Flynn Effect has been discredited. People have pointed out that all it shows is that people have become better at doing IQ tests, not that they were growing more intelligent. I myself have done endless IQ tests and steadily scored ever higher points as I did more and more IQ tests which were very similiar in nature. As soon as I did more complex IQ tests which had far different methods, I would end up scoring much lower than usual. My scores have varied anywhere from 113 IQ points to 170!

The Flynn Effect applies to subsequent generations. Yes you can teach yourself to do better at IQs, but like you said, as soon as the type of IQ test is changed drastically, your benefits are gone. The Flynn Effect applies to people who've never done IQ tests before, certainly not the ones used to test for it.

Oh, and the Flynn Effect has been recently broken. This is linked by some  to recent mass immigration:-

Yes, of course, you could have a situation where every race is getting smarter on average, but the population as a whole is getting less smart on average because basically the only ones who are growing in numbers are africans, who on average are less smart. Notice that this applies worldwide too, so it's not simply about immigration/emmigration.

One idea has been that  the level of dygenics over the last 200 years has been temporarily masked by the fact that better conditions arose such as less exposure to famine and better environment, along with better education. The idea being that dysgenics is now so dominant that a better environment/adequate nutrition etc. can no longer cloak it.

I'd doubt some of that. There might be less famine, but quality of foods has gone down substantially. And like you said, famines should have an eugenics effect, no?

Likewise the formal education has gotten terribly worse, while informal education has gotten much better in very recent times due to the internet.

SB, the above sounds much like the sort of plot found in E M Forster's novella "The Machine Stops" and Huxley's "Brave New World".

And yet it's all true.

Sorry for bad edit of quoting, I tried to modify but it doesn't work.

Quite reasonable, actually. Think about it, the cowards and those with defects in personality, character, physical build etc. would be the ones most likely to try avoiding front-line conflict in favour of peaceful positions in the Home Guard or nonviolent jobs like quartermaster etc. Simply incorrect. You underestimate the impact of modern medicine on human life. Like I stated before, many, many people are now alive and breeding who, 200 years ago, would have died long before being able to reproduce. Also, some problems have been ongoing since many millenia ago. Certain populations(for example, Jews/Muslims/Amish),  are and always have been riddled with inbreeding  so that modern medicine enabling many to survive and breed has made the problem much worse than before:-

Since there were massive drafts and widespread killing of civilians, many of whom who were too poor or too weak to escape, this is not necessarily so.

Also, the nazi regime especifically targeted what they considered to be inferior specimens for sterilization and/or imprisonment, enslavement or execution. Likewise in the Soviet Union and China, tons of people were executed or simply starved to death, and in this sense you would expect a eugenics effect from these phenomena.

Granted, some populations are better off than others but there is a steady decline in sperm-count and many other factors. Now, if you got everyone to eat a raw, palaeolithic diet  , dealt with air-pollition/water-pollution/soil-pollution and follow a reasonable daily regime of constant palaeo-style exercise, you would mostly get rid of the modern illnesses such as type 2 diabetes etc., but you could not remove the negative effects of inbreeding or the negative side-effects of modern medicine re enabling premature babies to survive etc.

Since rates for pretty much all diseases are way up, and we have more medical treatments than ever before, isn't it more reasonable to assume that all this medicine is a big part what is causing much of the disease, rather than simply dysgenic factors? (which I don't dispute are a problem today, but not in the same way you think)
Bear in mind also that the domestication of Mankind alone has resulted in a 10% drop in average brain-size, along with lower intelligence, since the Neolithic era got started:-

Yes, but this has been reversing for several hundred years at least. Also, consider the Flynn effect.

Dysgenics is clearly a major factor. For example, many people died in the 2 world wars, and there was the Spanish Flu epidemic after WW1 which caused a lot of people to die. If the remaining population were not suitable, genetically, then....

But that's a big assumption to make, that the remaining population were "not suitable" in a significant way.

Anyway,my point re all this is that there is a steady, increasing  tendency among all populations worldwide to have lower sperm-counts, higher birth-defect-rates etc. While some of that might be reversible, it is extremely unlikely that it could be wholly reversed.

And my point is that the tendency has increased at such a rapid pace that it can't possibly be due to dysgenics, and to the extent that dysgenics may play a role, it's only minimal when compared to the actual rate of change in the tendency.

Pottenger's study was deeply flawed. He made all sorts of false assumptions. I vaguely recall that he only compared cats eating some raw milk as well as raw flesh, he did not compare the milk-eating cats to cats eating only raw flesh.

That doesn't mean they are flawed, not in the least. If in your opinion raw milk was detrimental to the cats' health, and Dr Pottenger was able to reverse disease of all sorts with the raw meat + raw milk diet, then this means that an all-meat raw diet would have even better results.

Dr. Pottenger found that 4 generations on raw was all it took to bring his cats back to health. It's not clear that the damage is irreversible, nor that it's a result of dysgenics like you suggest.

The rise in the amounts of disease that we see over the past 50-100 years cannot be explained by dysgenics alone. It takes time for something like that to have a significant effect in the population.

Plus, you assume that just because someone survives, that they will reproduce, and that is not necessarily the case. In some ways there is even more discrimination now about who will reproduce and who won't, regarding diseases, than there was back in paleo times.

Health / Re: Pressure in head from raw fat/meat - cant eat raw meat
« on: December 01, 2017, 08:12:50 pm »
which I associated with caffeine detox,

(Or nerve healing from caffeine and other chemical damage)

Health / Re: Pressure in head from raw fat/meat - cant eat raw meat
« on: December 01, 2017, 08:10:36 pm »
Raw liver is supercharged with Vitamin A, so it's unlikely that an overdose is the problem if raw liver is what makes your symptoms go away.

Do you drink a lot of caffeinated drinks, or have you done this in the past?

I find that when I'm raw, my body is especially sensitive to caffeine, and reacts strongly to it, whereas if I'm eating cooked the reaction is not as strong.

I used to get blurred vision often when I was having a cooked diet (not necessarily low carb), and this went away when on raw, the only thing left was some ocassional twitching of one or the other eyelid which I associated with caffeine detox, which also went away in time. If anything, on raw my vision became better and better. However, if I have heavily caffeinated drinks, my vision will get worse and I get pain in the eyes that feels like blood pressure is too high in there, it makes my eyes feel like they're swelling up and as if that continued, something would burst.

Somehow I feel I need to hide this raw meat eating, people thinks it's too much somehow... How do you get out of the closet lol?

I don't go around telling everybody I meet what I eat and what I don't, most people don't need to know, or don't care to know, or don't want to know, and that's fine. But if you're trying to build a lifelong relationship with someone, that's not someone you want to be "in the closet" with.

How do you deal with people around you? Sharing food with others, or not?

Case by case basis, and depending on the closeness of the relationship(s), how they feel about it, how much time you're planning on spending with them and the reasons why you are spending time with them.

Finally, there are some food preparations where, if in a given situation it's acceptable for you to bring your own food for yourself only, others won't even realize that it's raw from sight alone.

Talk to him and help him see how ridiculous it is that he's terrified of germs and at the same time eats mett.

Don't push him to change his eating habits, but don't hide yours either. To the contrary, show him how your eating habits are much better for you than if you were eating like he does.

Finally, I would say, I wouldn't even date a girl more than once if she wasn't 100% cool with my eating habits, let alone make her my girlfriend.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 38
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk