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 ... 37
Off Topic / Re: The other side of the vaccination issue
« on: February 26, 2019, 12:50:09 am »
Pure pharma scare with no science to back it up...

How are people "fine" if most people are sick, and not with just one illness, but many illnesses? No, people are not fine.

Back in the 1950's, everybody was smoking, and everybody thought smoking tobacco wasn't a problem because everybody did it and everybody was "fine". But they were not fine, they dried up and died far before their time, they got several types of cancer and other illnesses associated with tobacco smoking, they had reduced pulmonary function, etc etc

Just like with tobacco, most of the health problems are not immediate, so in a society where everybody is doing it, indeed, where it is ILLEGAL not to do it... then you have no idea if people are fine. Especially when clearly they're not fine, but sicker and sicker than ever.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Starting off raw meat
« on: February 25, 2019, 03:19:08 am »
I'll occasionally eat something cooked for various reasons, but I always end up paying for it with some health problem caused by it.

I've had some symptoms that could be described as food poisoning from raw foods, but the only times I've had all symptoms of food poisoning together, have been from cooked foods.

Moreover, even if you do get these symptoms occasionally, it's your general health that matters, not what happens on any particular day or even week.

And it's not clear to me at all that eating raw increases the frequency or duration of these symptoms compared to eating cooked. What I will say is that highly processed, sterile food is unlikely to cause immediate problems. So you could eat chocolate and chips and pepsi all day and never have food poisoning. But how would your overall health be?

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Starting off raw meat
« on: February 24, 2019, 06:03:02 pm »
We all eat raw meat here. There are 2 types of disgust. One is psychological. That is, you've been taught that something is disgusting because it's raw. So then it's not really disgusting, you just think it is. Don't think, use your senses. What may happen is that your smell and taste tell you that it's raw, and your brain tells you that raw is disgusting because you've been taught to fear it. That's a psychological problem, and it will go away once your body learns that raw is healthy.

The other kind of disgust, is when the meat you are eating is so low quality, so full of toxins and raised in such poor unhealthy conditions, that it truly is disgusting when eaten raw. And when you cook that, you don't make it any healthier, but you mask the disgusting nature of the smell, taste and texture.

For instance, the other day I tried some factory farmed chicken, raw, just for experiment's sake. It felt like I was eating tasteless snot/goo. Free range organic chicken does not taste like that, but the meat is firm and tasty instead. Chickens bred in slightly better conditions than factory farmed, but not fully organic and free-range will be somewhere in between the two. Also, chicken that's been frozen will become more tasteless and watery too, and I think this one had been frozen.

Off Topic / Re: Anti-palaeo planned obsolescence
« on: February 21, 2019, 12:00:34 am »
Link is broken.

I'm not sure if planned obsolescence is really a thing. I think it may just be that people want the cheapest available, and the cheapest doesn't last.

For instance, I have seen several Dell LCD monitors last far more than the competition, but many people often buy other brands because they're slightly cheaper.

Off Topic / Re: Vegan couple nearly kill their baby son
« on: February 19, 2019, 08:22:49 pm »
There are worse things in the world. It's a pity for the baby, but having those parents he was screwed anyway. Bad luck.

call it what you will.  my only point in my continual posting re. AV is for others here, not for you, but mostly newcomers, to not blindly follow his exaggerated stories and suggestions.  'We' want to  believe there is some ultimate answer, and that is the advantage AV used in gathering followers.  All the time coming up with some theory or concoction that only he could deliver.   And if you choose to believe how many times he almost died of this or that and couldn't even walk... that's your choice.

Just realize that in doing so you may turn people off raw meat entirely. From a newcomer's perspective: If AV was a quack and his raw meat eating being healthy was a delusion or fraud, maybe you've just fallen into the same delusion and you think raw meat is healthy for you but it's not, you just disagree with AV's particular cult. If raw meat eating was truly healthy then you wouldn't exhibit such a strong fanatic reaction to someone promoting a diet slightly different from yours.

Or maybe that's exactly what you want?

I can turn the psychologizing on you, too, you see. Plenty of people want to feel special and superior, and if they find something that really works to improve their health, they don't want others to learn about it and improve their health with it. As that would mean that you're no longer special and superior. Since you can't make people not learn about this, perhaps you resort to the next best thing; making them believe it doesn't really work.

(No, I don't actually believe what I said above. I appreciate you being here and giving your opinions. I'm just saying... chill out, it's not the end of the world if someone wants to follow a particular raw diet plan instead of another)

I believe that is what I either read or heard from him. regardless he never mentioned at that point hunting.  this is what I mean, you want to believe him So much that you will fill in the blanks so that it makes sense to you. 

I simply said the story was plausible, not that it must be true. And you must be mistaking the part when he couldn't walk years prior, after the chemotherapy and radiation that left him crippled, before even starting to consume any raw foods whatsoever. He said he got a lot better by drinking raw milk and carrot juice, and was eventually able to walk and even bycicle; that's how he even got around to meeting all those tribes, by bycicling around and hopping on trains.

About hunting, again, he didn't say hunting, but he said the coyotes would play and move around him and then they started running and he followed, he ran after them. It's plausible that they were trying to get him to go on a hunt with them, and when he ran after them, that's what they thought he was doing.

I who have eaten raw meat for probably more years than you are old have nothing against his eating all sorts of foods.  Just his bullshit to garner followers like you.

For someone who must be so balanced and healthy from all those years of healthy eating, you sure sound kind of stressed out about this. It's not like he is hurting people or something. He got more people to eat raw meat in modern western societies than probably all other raw meat proponents combined.

Off Topic / Re: Vegan couple nearly kill their baby son
« on: February 16, 2019, 07:12:55 am »
So, crazy modern hippies almost kill their son by neglect... What else is new?  :)

Primal Diet / Re: Question regarding raw butter
« on: February 16, 2019, 06:41:18 am »
Every food loses nutrient availability when frozen. Freezing is similar to cooking, albeit not as drastic. Still, keep in mind you're bursting open every cell at the molecular level in that food source when you freeze it, as water forms crystals and expands when frozen. Any fresh food source that is frozen is partially destroyed nutritionally.

If you can't bear the taste of slightly fermented foods, at least compromise by freezing only the amount that you need to freeze, and keep the rest fresh.

About meats, there are many methods available to slow down the fermentation process besides freezing, all of them make you lose some nutrition, but if the alternative is not to eat at all, they are of course better. For instance, think of how beef is stored in cold rooms for weeks on end by the meat industry without fermenting... The trick is to keep it cold and keep the surface dry, by hanging it so that almost all of its surface is permanenty in contact with cold, dry air. This will dry the meat from the outside in. Here's how sabertooth does it at home:

About dairy... In the words of AV... "dairy never spoils, it just becomes a variety of cheeses and yoghurts"... So then the question is only if you enjoy a particular taste that a fermentation process gave you or not... This is highly variable according to the particular combination of bacteria and yeasts that grew as that dairy source was fermenting. Hence why many cheesemaking techniques carefully manage these, and inoculate with the kind they want.

As far as AV goes, he only compromised by allowing frozen berries for convenience, and because they're used mostly for detoxing anyway (and not for nutrition), and then also he allowed ice creams as a treat and to get people who need it to consume more fats, but warned to only keep it in the freezer for a maximum of 24hs. He did say that white meat such as fish tolerates a bit cooler temperatures than red meat without losing as much nutrients (but then again, most commercially bought fish (and often chicken, too) is kept at these lower temperatures by the time you buy it). Regarding dairy, if it was up to him, no dairy would ever be refrigerated. He did say that milk lost some nutritional properties by simple refrigeration, and if he got never-refrigerated milk, he would keep it that way. If he got already refrigerated milk, he would keep it refrigerated for convenience, but take it out to reach room temperature or even slightly warmer before drinking for optimal digestion.

At the end of the day though... The most important thing is that you keep eating healthy foods, and if compromises have to be made for convenience or taste, they can be endured.

Primal Diet / Re: Question regarding raw butter
« on: February 16, 2019, 04:17:58 am »
If it smells like cheese it means it's fermented quite a bit. Also it probably has a much higher than usual buttermilk content (cream liquids, possibly some milk also). It's fine.

AV said freezing butter was a bad idea regarding it's healing abilities.

In his studies, cats and dogs fed only frozen meat developed skin conditions up to and including mange. Raw butter helped cure these conditions, however frozen raw butter took 3 (4?) times as long as the regular butter to cure these issues.

Normally, butter will stay in the fridge for weeks on end before starting to ferment to the point where you can tell the difference. Even months or more, depending on how you store it. There really is no good reason to freeze it anyway.

Using small parts of that batch of butter that has a fermented smell you enjoy, to inoculate batches of fresh milk or cream, may help ferment them in such a way that the end result is similar to that one you enjoy

you had blockages?

I had pain in my heart that suggested blockages. It got worse around the times of a meal or exercise.

The pain was significantly reduced once I started including more (cooked) carbs and stopped exercising.

It took years on a raw diet to reverse the damage. And I'm not sure it's completely reversed.

It's funny how Tyler agrees that the problem is the cooking when it comes to raw foods he likes, but when it comes to dairy he refuses to see that the data he's referencing is derived purely from cooked sources.

On topic: Despite Van's views on glycation, In my personal experience, a high fat, cooked, very low carb diet combined with vigorous exercise is dangerous to the heart and will cause blockages, even moreso than a diet where you have both fats and sugar.


(This thread should have gone to the hot topic section)

Thank you for posting this. I hadn't realized it had already gotten to this point. There is probably less time left than even I thought we had. Notice this came out after I made all previous posts in this thread.

It honestly looks like what could be the beginning of a real zombie apocalypse.

The naivety of most posters here (and of most people in general) when seeing such a level of violence from an insane group of people who spread their mental virus at an accelerating rate, reminds of the now cliche "first they came for the factory farmers, and I didn't say anything because I'm not a factory farmer, and I don't like them anyway" thing.

It's only a matter of time before they start targeting organic, healthy farms too, and then eventually all meat sellers and eventually all meat eaters. Why? Because of this bizarre, crazy and anti-human idea that there is such a thing as "animal rights", which most here and most people in general support. The ones you see in the video are the extremists yes, but they are simply taking this crazy idea to its natural conclusion, and increasingly more people will fall victims to the same insanity, as long as there isn't anyone shining a light and showing them the way, and simply saying: No, animals don't have rights. Animals are property.

But please don't dilute the concept of raising animals in a humane way, or in a fashion that allows that animal to not suffer.  Pretty simple concept to me as I've done it for years.

Again, the very concept of treating animals "humanely" is bizarre, self contradictory, and eventually suicidal.

Likewise, animals cannot "suffer" by definition. Suffering is a human emotion.

It's interesting that those accusing others of being "humanocentric" are the ones doing anthropomorphism and trying to turn animals into humans.

You are forgetting that everything is linked in a world ecology, here. If our ultimate concern is only for human health and wellbeing, then wiping out other species, or degrading them via dysgenics/inbreeding etc.  is not going to help us in the long term.

If and insofar as some wild lifeforms are more beneficial for human health and wellbeing than domesticated ones, I'm all for them. Likewise for certain selected traits.

There is no need for laws mandating protection of wild species in private lands, or of certain selected breeds' traits, however.

I believe you can advocate for animal rights and still eat meat....just as you can advocate for justice and work at the top floor of the justice Department... Humans have the wonderfully convenient capacity for hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and diabolical duplicity.

Well, of course you can do whatever you want. But if your own tenets that you profess and recommend to others are bound to get you killed once taken to their obvious conclusions, then there's something wrong with your system of ethics.

Joking aside, "rights" can mean anything to anyone. For the most part even our most cherished human rights are more guidelines than absolutes.

Just like some people can believe the Earth is flat when it is round, or some can believe chemical toxins are beneficial to our health, so too can plenty of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are, or what rights are correct. Remember that referring to "rights" is also a way of saying "what is right". There's only one set of rights that is correct for humans under a strictly hunter-gatherer, communal system of production, and only one, strictly opposite set of rights that is correct for humans living under an agricultural, individualistic, trade-based system of production. There can be minor disagreements as regards the specifics of how to apply those rights in very particular circumstances, but the tenets are set in stone, and they can be derived logically, using nothing other than our own understanding of what it means to be human.

From the perspective of a mindful meat eater "animal rights"  means good animal husbandry. Insuring a quality standard of life for the animals raised for meat, while they live, and giving them a quick death without prolonged and cruel suffering, when they are harvested.

The problem here is that you're using a term that means something for humans, and using it to mean something completely different for animals, all while attempting to reconcile the two in some way. This is bound to get you in trouble, as the contradictions abound and "rebels" who think they have everything figured out start killing meat eating humans in an attempt to "defend animal rights"... This is coming, and we should recognize it as possibly the biggest threat to humanity in the coming decades, or perhaps even centuries. As long as these rebels are treated as the terrorists they are, life will continue to be bearable, but once these rebels get a hold of the oppressive, criminal arm of the State, there will be dark times for many of us.

There is also a more eastern perspective to consider that denies the separation from the self and the outside world, so to kill and consume life, is to kill and devour a part of your self....This view goes way beyond the limited  notions of individual rights, and chooses to focus more on respecting the interconnectedness between self and other, human/animal, or predator/prey. Violation of our food animals basic "humane" living standards will give rise to negative Karma in the flesh, and will have to be payed for with future negative Karma, by those who blindly feed upon their own cruelty...

These religions are a part of the problem, too. They have some fundamentally anti-human tenets within their teachings. However, they have managed to keep those tenets in check for millenia, whereas the more virulent radical veganism ideology continues to prove itself more dangerous every day.

For me Humane is a subjective term, in which the individual uses human judgement to decide what conditions are conducive for maximum health and minimal suffering, of another being. Being humane in regards to livestock is to put yourself in the animals position?? For example... If you were a Sheep in a shepherd's flock, you wouldn't have any  of these high falutin thoughts, or agony over injustice.... so what would be considered human to Ewe would be much different from what is humane to me.

If I were a sheep that was going to be eventually slaughtered and eaten... I would hope that I was given good pasture to eat, fresh water, protection from wild beast, the ability to move spend what short time I have without suffering or trama....spending a good many beautiful days grazing, breeding, ruminating and bleeting as sheep do...blissfully unaware of the hungry reapers watch.

Just like the hunters of old put themselves in their prey's position only to figure out how to predict its movements in order to best achieve a kill so they can eat their flesh, so too animal husbandry should concern itself with putting oneself in the animals' position only insofar as it refers to maintaining optimal health and optimal use of resources for those animals, so that their flesh is more abundant and more nourishing to us.

Again, animals should be kept in healthy conditions for the benefit of the meat and the health of the meat eating humans, not for the benefit of the animals in and of themselves.

Life is a struggle for survival and reproduction. Every animal wants to win. It's not possible for the farmer to guarantee each of its rams will be able to survive and reproduce, as inherently some will be able to mate more than the others. By selecting those rams that will make offspring that is able to produce more quantity of more nourishing meat in a shorter amount of time and with a smaller amount of food input, and also selecting for docility which will make his flock more manageable, he is doing something good for humans, but you could argue he is doing something "bad" for the sheep. That's not a problem, because our only ultimate concern should be about human health and wellbeing.

'you' can advocate for animals being raised humanely and then eat them.  Rights?  different story.  That concept lies in the mind

What does it mean to raise animals "humanely"? Like they are humans? But you can't do that. Humans are not bred in captivity for slaughter for meat. We're not cannibals.

Rights don't simply lie in the mind, they lie in the minds of all civilized humans.

Every (I/eye) thinks it self the center of the universe.... humancentric behavior and thinking is just what humans do.

Nobody is saying that we're the center of the universe.

Rights are a tacit agreement developed to better live in harmony with one another... With other humans that is. Animals don't have rights. The very concept of animals having rights is a misunderstanding of what rights are and why they are good.

If you raise an animal in such a way that its meat becomes toxic, you have squandered good resources, and if you then sell it to customers under false pretenses, you've commited fraud. Fraud is an infringement on someone else's rights. Some other humans' rights. Animals don't have rights. Which is why we can kill them and eat their flesh and no sane person would think we are doing something wrong (militant vegans are not sane).

Rights have nothing to do with nutrition.

Animals can't simultaneously have "rights" and be slaughtered for food.

You can be an animal rights advocate, or you can be a regular meat eater. You can't be both. Choose.

Primal Diet / Re: High meat question about lack of airing
« on: February 07, 2019, 01:33:21 am »
What I'm thinking is that even if there was the possibility of botulinic bacteria to thrive in raw foods and cause botulinic toxin as a byproduct (which I'm not sure is possible from raw foods), the fact that you had plenty of air in the jar, and the fact that it was only a week or two that you didn't air it, probably means that the toxin load is minimal if at all present.

The fact that temperatures are cold probably inhibits bacterial growth even more. I'm not sure if botulinic bacteria prefer a warmer climate or not, but most bacteria do.

Finally, even if there is some botulinic toxin load, since you're eating only small amounts at a time, it shouldn't be a big deal.

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.

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

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.

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

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..

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.

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.

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