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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 38
  And fish, of course, I have eaten raw, but for some reason, the past two times I have had sashimi, I felt like I was going to throw up later that night.  And this is unusual for me b/c I can eat REALLY old meat and never feel sick.

Did you have it from a sushi place? And was it pink salmon? Because most pink salmon is farmed, and even wild pink salmon might be genetically contaminated by escaped GMO salmon from farmed operations.

Did you have the sashimi with the usual soy sauce and fake wasabi? Because it could also have been that that made you ill.

I haven't had wild pink salmon, but I used to be a big fan of cooked farmed pink salmon, and then later of farmed pink salmon sashimi, until I stopped adding the soy sauce and wasabi, and tasted it raw on its own, and realized that it didn't taste good at all.

In either case, not all meats are for everybody. Some people swear by fish and will eat an almost entirely fish based diet if they can get enough fresh fish. Others like me find that fish doesn't satisfy us much. And then again our tastes do change and from time to time a fish eater might want some red meat, or a red meat eater may want only fish for a while.

In my experience, women tend to prefer fish more often than men, while men tend to prefer red meat more often than women. But it's not always like that.

I find that most fish is too bland and light, and I don't enjoy the texture much. I have the same problem with skinless chicken breast. However, if I marinate these meats in lemon juice, they become really tasty. The fish usually turns softer and mushier, but very tasty, and the chicken breast turns firm for some reason, and has a much chewier texture that I really like. Plus the taste improves a lot.

Fish eyes are pretty tasty however, and sometimes are amazing. They seem to be better and sweeter when the fish is very fresh, they even taste almost like fatty berries sometimes. Fish organs are disgusting, they're one of the most bitter things in the world.

Chicken legs/thighs, the organs and the bone marrow I really enjoy as is. I haven't had conventional chicken yet, and I don't think I will. But some people claim to like it.

Most cuts of pork are really tasty too, especially if it's organic.

From beef I've only had conventional grain finished. The lean meats are tasty (though not ask much as organic pork or organic chicken), but the fat is usually pretty disgusting. Some of the fat will be okay sometimes, but most will be almost inedible in my opinion. By contrast, pork fat is pretty tasty, and it will only taste bad if it's from conventional pork, and then again only some of it will taste bad, maybe like 50%. Or it will only start tasting bad after you had more than a little.

Rabbit isn't bad, but it's too lean. Rabbit brain is pretty good, but you only get a tiny amount of it per rabbit. I haven't noticed a lot of difference between conventional and organic rabbit. They were probably both fed the same all-grain diet. It tastes almost identical to chicken, minus most of the fat. And the meat is a bit more firm.

Conventional goat I don't particularly enjoy, but it's edible.

Conventional lamb is pretty good.

Oysters can either be a mouth watering gift from the gods, or really yucky things that you eat only because you spent so much money on them. It's hard to get the good ones. I'd say I only get good ones about 20% of the time I buy them.

Squid is amazing. Well, most of it is. The tentacles, mouth and eyes are. The "body" is only good if you remove the skin, otherwise it tastes pretty bad. Oh and the organs are as bad as fish organs.

Generally when we look at seeds, grains, legumes, etc, we should keep in mind that the plants producing these don't want them to be eaten unless they can be swallowed whole in such a way that they pass undigested. Therefore the plants will always put some kind of poison in them, to deter animals from eating them in such a way that they are destroyed and can't germinate.

Plants also do this with their leaves, roots and all other parts of the plant that are not the fruit or pollen/nectar.

Domestication of plants has meant that we can choose from among those plants which have the lowest toxin loads in their wild forms, and reduce them even more through careful selective breeding.

However, I think we should still exercise caution when consuming these foods, and we should probably limit their intake.

Apple seeds won't harm you much if you eat the seeds from one apple, particularly if you eat them by accident, since you might not even be crushing the seeds with your teeth. If you're eating the seeds that have been taken from a few thousand apples, however, and not actually eating the apples in themselves, you could be in trouble.

General Discussion / Re: To salt or not to salt, that is the question!
« on: September 02, 2017, 08:37:06 am »
What you wrote is right with processed, cooked and mixed stuff, but false with raw, unprocessed and unmixed "paleo" stuff, aka things that have been around in our environment ever since millions of years. Otherwise our predecessors in our evolutionary lineage would have all died from poisoning themselves by toxic stuff that tasted good to them, and we wouldn't be here!

But salt is a processed and cooked stuff :)

That said, I should correct what I said before. Salt on meat is not particularly appealing. However, salt on freshly sliced tomatoes tastes amazing.

Also, if I just take a tiny flaxseed-sized crystal of salt and slowly dissolve it in my mouth like candy, it tastes really good.

I'll read those, thanks

Both, Pottenger and Price, compared diets of cooked various foods including cooked milk or dairy against diets of various raw foods including raw dairy. Of course, they found out that populations (of cats and humans) having a raw diet had a better health than those having a partly or completely cooked diet!

They didn't compare populations having a raw diet without dairy against populations having a raw diet with dairy.   

And who compared populations with a raw diet without dairy to populations with a raw diet + raw dairy?

Also, During the early 20th century, Weston A. Price visited the Masai people of eastern Africa and found them to be disease free and lacking dental decay, a measure he used to extrapolate overall bone health, and by extension, health in general.

The Masai diet back then consisted mainly of 3 foods, in order of volume, raw milk, raw blood, and raw meat.

Now that they were forced to add grains into their diet and are cooking much of their foods, including the milk, they have a lot of disease and plenty of dental decay.

In his cat studies, Dr Pottenger discovered that cooked and processed milk caused bone deterioration, as well as a host of other diseases, while raw and nontoxic milk helped with or cured these problems.

What do you mean when you say the wild herbs and grasses lowered overall production of food? Do you mean the total amount of energy that cows can derive from those grasses and herbs is lower than that which can be derived from the domesticated grasses?

I've always favored wild herbs and grasses as long as the land area you have is big enough. If you're in an area where land is very expensive and you have to make the most of what you have, planting the grasses yourself might be best if you know what you're doing.

Also, cattle were domesticated in Europe, so it stands to reason that the wild herbs and grasses of Europe would be the best kind for that species, whereas maybe in the US, you would do best with bison, in South America, with llamas, goats in the middle east, and in Australia, Kangaroos?

In that sense, it also stands to reason that if you're looking to breed cattle outside of Europe, you might want to plant some of the wild species of grasses and herbs that naturally grow in Europe?

Obviously, those species might not grow as well in a different climate. So it's not clear that that you should do that.

Selective breeding might create some problems but it also reduces others. For example, most of the greens we eat have been selectively bred to have a lower toxin load than their wild counterparts.

And dogs being tame is an important part of their role as work animals for certain tasks.

Rather than discard selective breeding altogether, I suggest we embrace it and attempt to selectively breed plants, fruits, meats, eggs and dairy that are more beneficial for our health than their current domesticated versions. We could start from wild, or from the already domesticated versions.

GMO is a completely different thing, where even according to the scientists doing it, they blast genes from one species onto another in a lab and create a chimera monster that could never arise naturally even under the rarest conditions. Then you end up with a spider-pig or fungi-fish.

How can they be 64 times larger? That'd mean the original ones were smaller than an olive?

General Discussion / Re: Anybody eat lungs?
« on: July 23, 2017, 06:23:12 am »
I've had low quality lungs from rabbit and goat. They're not something I would consider tasty, but are edible. You're left feeling like you just had your vegetables. You do it for whatever special nutrition they might contain, but it's not enjoyable.

I suspect higher quality sources might taste better.

If you guys wanna laugh, facepalm, and feel sorry for all the people involved, I suggest watching this episode of "Freaky Eaters" from 2010 if you haven't seen it already. In it, a team of doctors and psychologists try to convince a perfectly healthy raw meat eater that he's destroying his health and putting his life at risk with his addiction to raw meat and that this addiction was caused by psychological childhood problems.

Health / Re: Meats fully digest leaving no waste?
« on: July 08, 2017, 06:47:02 pm »

AV or Aajonus Vonderplanitz only ate raw foods. He considered parasites to be a good thing, but they refused to live in his body for most of his life, something he attributed to the fact that his body was too polluted from a poor diet and lifestyle and medical treatments early in his life.

Health / Re: Meats fully digest leaving no waste?
« on: July 07, 2017, 05:57:50 pm »
It's up to how your own experience has taught you that your own body works. Some people need vegetable fiber, and others do not. What's more, sometimes the same person's body needs vegetable fiber at some points but not at others. Experiment and learn, just keep track of your bms and err on the side of caution and you'll be fine. Also keep in mind that the more cooked your meats are, the worse they are in terms of constipation. Cheese is always bad in this sense, but cooked cheeses are worse. Nevertheless, you should only eat small amounts of cheese at a time if you want to avoid constipation under most circumstances, although different types of cheese are different. The less whey they contain (harder, drier cheese), the worse they are in this sense.

AV spent most of his life being highly constipated with his very low fiber diet, believing that fiber was not the right way to get the intestines to do their work, but many of his clients did fine on his diet. He did cure his constipation once he finally got intestinal parasites to take a hold. It may be important to notice that he had a surgery that removed his ability to secrete hydrochloric acid in his stomach. That could be the reason for the constipation, since meats in particular need large amounts of hydrochloric acid before they're ready for proper digestion, and in his case he could only secrete this throughout his intestines.

That's interesting. I could believe that simians originated in Asia, but it's unlikely that apes did as well. The article only mentions simians as a general group, anyway.

Also, the hypothesis seems like they're taking quite a leap. In order for something like this to make sense, we would have to expect that fossils would've been much more commonly formed (and remained) in Africa than in Asia at that time. Or perhaps if Africa had been searched much more extensively by fossil hunters than Asia.

It would be interesting to see if they come up with new finds in Asia for these little critters that predates those in Africa.

Well all apes originated in Africa, so the ancestors of Neanderthals must have migrated out of Africa far, far before the established dates. Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that anatomically modern humans first appeared in Africa, even if Neanderthals were to have played no part in their evolution, which is unlikely.

Off Topic / Re: Figures given for plastic pollution in oceans
« on: July 04, 2017, 10:13:22 pm »
While this is bad, I'm more worried about chemicals and heavy metals from industrial and household waste. I wonder if anyone has done a measurement like this for soaps, detergents and other cleaning products.

Floating plastics, while they will stay there for longer, can be avoided by marine lifeforms to a large extent, even if not completely. But toxins that dissolve in the water can't be avoided.

Off Topic / Re: UK Vegan propaganda
« on: July 01, 2017, 11:30:15 pm »
Your above claim is absurd. Currently, courts throughout Europe are preventing the deportation of numerous  serious migrant  criminals (such as rapists/murderers etc.) all because of their human rights. In the palaeolithic era, such people would have been swiftly executed, just for being freeloaders, never mind the crimes they committed.

In the paleolithic era, human rights did not exist, and they did not apply given the context. Everybody over the age of 8 was either a murderer, a rapist, torturer, or all of the above. Freeloaders would have been executed, yes, and that would be a huge violation of human rights today (or at any other point in the agricultural era, which is where human rights properly apply and exist), but back then it made sense given the context.

All of that said, back to the modern era, people who are proven to be murderders, rapists or torturers of innocent people, with a 100% accuracy (say 99.9999%) have no rights. They forfeited their rights when they committed their crimes. Thus to apply human rights to them is equally as wrong as to apply rights to non-human animals.

(keep in mind that by rape I mean actual forcible rape, that is: either through physical violence, threats of physical violence or of theft either to the victim or third parties, or otherwise lack of waking consciousness or inability to refuse of/by the victim and where there isn't a tacit consent that can be reasonably expected by the perpetrator. I don't mean some radical feminist's wet dream, imagination or morning-after regrets - making a serious attempt to knowingly and willingly incriminate an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit should carry the same if not a larger penalty than committing that crime)

General Discussion / Re: Plantains vs. Bananas?
« on: June 30, 2017, 09:11:03 am »
Btw, elephants will often destroy trees with no apparent immediate purpose. Some biologists think it's because they know trees block the sunlight and destroying the trees makes more way for grasses to grow, which are the main staple of their diet.

The theory sounds a little outlandish when you first hear it, but elephants do have amazing memory and long lifespans. One can only guess if this is the reason they're doing it, or if it's something else.

General Discussion / Re: Plantains vs. Bananas?
« on: June 30, 2017, 07:05:11 am »

It's a different thing to survive for a week in the tropics on only fruits, than to survive and thrive year-round, year after year, in the much harsher climates of this Earth. And I wonder how many of those 50 different edible fruits were as sweet as a regular domesticated overripe plaintain or banana or grape or apple or mango. Probably none of them.

Also, humans are not tree-dwellers. There's a reason we walk up straight and why our legs are 10 times as strong as our arms, whereas other apes who spend a significant amount of time up in the trees walk mostly on all fours and have arms almost as strong as their legs. We left the jungles and forests long before ever becoming humans, and opted instead mostly for the plains, savannah, tundra and other mostly open field areas where large grass and shrub eating game was available for hunting. Yes we can still do ok in the jungle and in the forest, but the main staple of our diet has mostly been meat. We did destroy some of the forests and jungles, but to believe that the whole Earth (or our natural living environment) consisted largely of these, is simply mistaken. The reason we destroyed what forests and jungles we did is because we don't thrive in those environments, whether as farmers or as hunter-gatherers.

Off Topic / Re: Finance and security
« on: June 26, 2017, 09:39:47 pm »
Why don't you live with your brother, Tyler?

General Discussion / Re: Plantains vs. Bananas?
« on: June 24, 2017, 09:14:33 pm »
Even so, these are a very small number of fruits that grow in a small number of geographic locations, are not very prolific, and are generally only available for a short period of time. And some are not even that sweet, such as wild figs. Also, in the wild, other animals such as birds, monkeys, chipmunks, boars, etc, tend to get them before humans can.

Depending on the climate, the idea would be to produce most of the foods on-site. We'd produce much more than our guests could consume so we'd also sell food to the locals. For foods that could not be produced on-site, we'd purchase them in bulk.

Not all of us can afford jetting across continents to visit a very expensive spa/resort for raw foodists. However, like with other diets, we need to have available more rpd-friendly restaurants and rpd-meetups etc.

It wouldn't be that expensive. We could open it in a place where land and labor are both inexpensive, but where there isn't a lot of crime and life is comfortable for foreigners. My idea is that a stay in this resort could cost less than the typical vacation, perhaps to such an extent that for an average person, going to this resort for a month might very well cost the same as the typical sightseeing trip costs for a week or two. Of course, for the wealthy, we might offer premium rooms and service and the like. But we would also be able to offer budget packages.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 38
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk