Author Topic: Animal Medicine Issue  (Read 31253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2009, 09:16:27 am »
But GS, #1, I did not address my post to you.  #2, the catastrophic crap is so unbelievably unbelievable that anyone with any science background can see it's bunk.  Same with Tyler lately, I just can't respond to these reports of herbs being in modern primates therefore we all were herbalists in the past.  If the logic is lacking, then I can't make reason understood by using it.  It is absolutely pointless to comment here now! 

Finally, the reason why I am so turned off by this forum now is this comment you made to Elainie, which probably scared her off for good.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/welcoming-commitee/hi-there/msg9619/#msg9619
"It's 1:30am.
An idea popped in my mind and I just had to type this so I can get back to sleep.
After your fifth child, did you get a ligation / have your tubes tied?
Did you get into any kind of contraception?
Did you get into any maintenance drugs or shots?"

You should delete my account now.  (I had big problems doing it in the past, as it does not happen in any reasonable time).  Thank you. And may the force be with you.




Satya, these are kind of questions that I doctor would ask a patient. That's what we do here help people. It maybe a cultural thing to be so specific and I would of not been so specific but thats my culture. I don't see the problem.

Charles talks about tits and arses, now that can annoying.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 09:29:33 am by wodgina6722 »
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2009, 01:35:06 pm »
I'm not basing this on palaeo beliefs but simple logic and common sense. The nutrients within a healthy cow liver help the liver of a human as well, by implication. To suggest otherwise is to claim that cows and humans have such widely different body-chemistry that they originate from different planets. An unlikely possibility.

Not sure I follow your reason, logic, or common sense.  If it was required to eat like to properly nourish like then cows couldn't exist at all because they eat grass.  As far as I know grass doesn't have a liver, heart, spleen, or anyother organ like a cow.  The argument that like nourishes or cures like is simplistic nonsense.  You are correct that many ancient (and some modern) cultures believe this stuff, but it doesn't make it true.  What is does do is line the pockets of charlatans peddling this stuff to the uneducated.

Yet, in very recently, you claimed that raw organ-meats were supposedly not necessary. Sudden change of tune, there.

No change in tune. My statement was that I was no longer totally convinced that organ meats are necessary.  I still eat them in the form of my pet food mixture, but my observation has been that many who are doing zero carb are doing quite well on muscle meats alone.  I also know that people have survived for long periods on pemmican as their only food with no organ meats at all, and have seemingly maintained perfect health.  This sort of puts me in the position of the dying gangster who doesn't believe in God, calling in the priest for Last Rights just in case  - soooo, I continue eating my small bit of organ meats, just in case.  But I'm also willing to point out that there is a good bit of evidence that my previous reasoning on the need for organ meats may be pure folly.   

There is an important , really major flaw with this notion, namely, that carnivores in the wild routinely use herbal medicine(raw herbs) to cure their various ills, it's not just a herbivore/omnivore thing -self-medication by animals is a known fact. So, that makes it clear that diet alone cannot possibly achieve 100% health. Exercise, herbs etc. all can play a part.

I have little experience or real knowledge in this area so must defer to others.  My only actual experience in animal self medication that I can think of is that my cat chews grass when she gets fur balls and this makes her vomit the mess (including the bit of grass she ate) all over the rug.  If this qualifies for animal self medication then I must admit that my cat 'medicates' herself with grass.  I haven't had a fur ball lately and when I drank wheatgrass juice or vegetable juices it just made me nauseous, dizzy, and gave me loose smelly stools.  I decided to stop self-medicating based on this experience.  I've felt much better ever since.

I wasn't referring only to non-RAFers but to RAFers as well. Plenty of RAFers have mentioned increased sex-drive as a result of eating raw oysters, and have mentioned a much stronger. more noticeable effect from raw oysters than with other raw foods.

I only pointed out that a diet of raw animal foods of all types seem to increase libido in everyone who tries it.  I haven't personally noticed raw oysters doing much more for me than a diet of raw red meat and fat - but that is my experience, YMMV.

Lex

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,785
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2009, 01:41:26 pm »
I pinched this quote from the zerocarb forum just for you to consider

Studies of wild animal populations since the 1950's has revealed a continuous increase in the rate of cancer. Given that these wild animal populations are in their natural environments, eating their natural diets, the most obvious culprit in the increasing rate of cancer is environmental toxins, including pesticides.

Nicola

Absolutely interesting.   :o
Can you reply with the URL found on zerocarb forum regarding this quote?
I'd like to follow up on this and try to find the culprits.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2009, 01:56:23 pm »
What really concerns me is this whole fundamentalist approach. Most RAFers come to a raw version of the Palaeolithic diet while doing some other raw diet(eg:- raw vegan with a little raw meat or, far more commonly, they are Primal Dieters or weston-price-dieters). Now, if we start banning free discussion by people on issues some of us don't imagine are "palaeo", then we'll have to ban anyone who even vaguely mentions raw dairy consumption etc,. and, may I remind you, that Primal Dieters far outnumber RPDers, so we'd be discouraging many future potential RPD converts.

No one is suggesting that we "ban" discussion of these topics, just that they be addressed and argued in context of the topic of this forum which is RAW PALEO.  GS started this thread which I feel is a valid topic to discuss.  I'm sure the discussion is not going exactly as he intended.  I expect he wanted support for prescribing animal parts as "medicine" to cure illness.  I don't think that is the proper context.  Instead I challenged the very concept of using specific plants or animal parts as "treatments" or "cures" being appropriate to the concept of a paleo lifestyle, and a lively debate has been the result.  I'm finding the arguments on both sides interesting and thought provoking.

BTW, thanks for bringing up my apparent waffling on the need for organ meats.  My guess is others may have misunderstood my initial comments.  Your challenge helped me clarify my own thinking and address the issue in a little more detail.

Lex 

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2009, 08:57:45 pm »
Absolutely interesting.   :o
Can you reply with the URL found on zerocarb forum regarding this quote?
I'd like to follow up on this and try to find the culprits.


Post 112

http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=1652&page=12

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #55 on: May 12, 2009, 12:56:13 am »
Sorry, it was badly worded, I'd thought you'd implied that natural selection in palaeo times was responsible for posture.

The trouble with your claims is that people have vastly improved their posture by following good habits  such as the alexander technique etc., while still doing crappy, processed diets, so clearly a good diet cannot be an explanation for that. I am most certainly not a weston-price convert, by any means, and much of his claims re supposed links between criminality/homosexuality  and genes/diet etc. have been proven to be absolute bunk.


What really worries is me is what someone once told me years ago, that claiming that diet was the sole answer to health was the first sign of dietary fundamentalism. That's why I was so leery of Aajonus's claims that one didn't need exercise or anything else, one just had to stuff oneself with raw animal food etc.(of limited variety) and everything would be fine.

Another aspect is that limiting discussion solely to diet greatly limits us as a forum. The vast majority of us, I suspect, aren't obsessed with diets, raw or otherwise, 24 hours a day. We all have separate lives , full of interesting stuff unrelated to diet. So, IMO, we have an off-topic forum, a hot topics forum etc. It's just boring to discuss only raw diets 100% of the time.

And given that there's still great controversy about what actually is Palaeo, it's absurd for anyone to choose for us all what Palaeo means. It's hubris, in fact.


Re satya herbal medicine- You clearly didn't read my posts. I'd actually pointed out, that not only our immediate  primate cousins, but all animals routinely practise herbal medicine, even carnivores. Something that endemic and so much a part of animals' lives can hardly be said to have suddenly appeared(and only in man and modern animals!) within the last few thousand years.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
the flood issue
« Reply #56 on: May 12, 2009, 01:02:15 am »

"I want to investigate and home in closer to what paleolithic conditions truly were.  And it appears that assuming today's 365 day calendar, single sun, planets far apart, night and day conditions, dry air, big swaths of oceans, 4 seasons per year, are not what our paleolithic ancestors may have experienced before the worldwide floods"

~ if i remember correctly, the last ice age is said to have happened some 70,000-10,000 years before present > 1 huge, or many, flood(s) must have ensued

~ the cro-magnon, the authors of human-cum-animal cave paintings, were up & running roughly in the 2nd half of that last glaciation period

~ archeological records of rice cultivation (a flood crop, if you look at it) are at least as old as 8,000 bce -- neolithic agriculture

in sum:
any biblical or otherwise recent flood (i.e. after 8,000 bce) is not paleo but neolithic

now
the # of sun(s) or seasons, etc. during the various stages of the paleolithic, or even earlier on since the beginning of the biosphere on this planet, are part of a separate theoretical approach, which is to be studied, accepted, rejected, or left in a limbo for the time being

"time & gradient precede existence", me

Offline rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
optimal meat ratio?
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2009, 02:00:52 am »

"Seems the darwin uniformitarian slow evolution may be wrong about assuming the same earth conditions for millions of years and us humans evolving from life beginning within the oceans, then we should find sea food more compatible... but instead most of us... me included find raw beef to be most health giving.  Then the pre-flood earth may indeed have had more land than oceans and more beef like animals that sustained human life in the low carb / high fat manner"

i'm not sure about your premise, haven't studied this yet

but what you say about beef reminds me that in the cave paintings most of the animals depicted, other than felines & bears, are large or medium quadrupeds: horse, mammoth, bison, ox, ibex, stag...
birds & fish are only few & far between

maybe there is an optimal ratio in the kind of animals they ate?

{personally, i don't eat fish mostly because even if i find it right off the boat it isn't totally satisfying by itself (as quadruped meat is); i do take good quality fish oil on a regular basis, though, for its large-chain pufa's & oily vitamins}



« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 02:14:51 am by rafonly »
"time & gradient precede existence", me

Offline Guittarman03

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #58 on: May 12, 2009, 10:36:16 am »

The argument that like nourishes or cures like is simplistic nonsense.  You are correct that many ancient (and some modern) cultures believe this stuff, but it doesn't make it true.  What is does do is line the pockets of charlatans peddling this stuff to the uneducated.

How can you say that eating like foods absolutely DOES NOT help?  Perhaps there may be SOME validity to the idea that eating liver could help heal a poorly functioning liver, or help it heal faster.  Do you have specific research which disproves this notion?  And why so resistant to the idea that oysters can increase arousal or sperm count; or for that matter, the many other possibilities regarding food and herbs?  Just b/c a food does or does not affect you in a particular way, does not mean that holds for everyone else on the planet.  No one doubts that solid nutrition (RAF) is the underpinning of health, but many of us are interested in how food and herbs can be used for healing, and for affecting the mind/body in various ways.  Two perfect examples: honey helps wounds to heal much faster; and coconut water can be used as intravenous fluid.  We have known this since WWII (longer really).  But from the way you respond, I would suspect you are 'against' these hocus pocus, snake-oil remedies lining the pockets of charlatans - your [apparent] bitterness towards, whoever, would keep you from considering the possibilities or the research - even if that research is somewhat flawed or sometimes marred by those trying to make a quick buck.         


'Poor posture is caused by our ANCESTORS and OUR present POOR DIETS not by ergonomically incorrect chairs! '


Sitting in chairs all the time and lack of motion in general, causes your muscles,joints, and connective tissues to stiffen and atrophy, resulting in weakness and dysfunction of movement and displacement of bones which manifests itself as pain in the body.  Furthermore, injuries sometimes need healing. 
I have used stretching/exercise techniques specifically designed to reduce this dysfunction to CURE lower back pain after a 20 foot fall, CURE a neck/upper back injury after landing basically on my head(separate incident), CURE my girlfriend’s chronic headaches (like 3 per week), I could go on.  The changes were drastic, quick, and long lasting (check out "Egoscue Method of Health Through Motion" if you're interested).  Although I do concede to you, there is no doubt a genetic and dietary component that plays a major role in bone development and joint health as well (I often wonder how different I would be if I was RP from conception),
but the more general point I'd like to make is -

 for a forum where we’re supposed to be open to discussion and possibilities I hear some very close minded and absolutist kind of statements about some topics that - at the VERY least - MAY be beneficial regarding various aspects of health.  It's almost like the dogmatism that often accompanies veganism/vegetarianism has infected our RP forum.  I started eating raw animal foods as an open minded experiment to see if and how it works - and I wasn't in [apparent] poor health, didn't come from raw vegan, or vegetarianism, or even cooked paleo - just came across it randomly one day and thought it made sense.  And I'm very interested in the ideas of other open minded individuals (hell, even close minded sometimes), and very interested in results of their experiences and experiments.

Truth is, while this is a RP forum, it is more generally a health forum.  And I'd like to be able to discuss ideas of health, wellness, nutrition, exercise, and yes, alternative medicine under the umbrella of a raw animal food diet.  This should be a medium for comfortable exchange of ideas, even if sometimes those ideas are wacky.  Let's be a little more tolerant, perhaps more open, at least less ridiculing.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”   - Albert Einstein
When you consume an organism it loses individuality, but its biological life never ends.  Digestion is merely a transfer of its life to mine.

Satya

  • Guest
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2009, 02:05:32 am »
It's not about censorship, it's about keeping focus on the main boards.  Tyler did not even want Lex's pemmican manual in the recipes section, which is fine.  I put a bone stock blurb in the WAPF board, since it is not raw.  And I did ask permission about it.  It is this sort of thing.  Liver flushes may help someone as much as a bone stock, but it's not really on topic for the forum.  I used to be a moderator on this forum from its inception, which I gave up by my own volition several months ago.   I can comment on the changes to it from experience.

Andrew, you are correct that these are pretty basic questions, but they are pretty darn personal!  She never sought after these inquiries, and perhaps it is coincidental, but she stopped posting shortly after this.  I am pretty open, but my contraception or lack thereof is pretty out of line on a public forum unless I ask about it, don't you think?  It's like me saying, "Oh, I just woke up and can't get back to sleep until you tell me how often you ejaculate a week."

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2009, 08:38:42 am »
i had to laugh Satya! 

I don't think that girl was a stayer anyway.

Guitarman using words like seems/could/possibly/may makes for some really boring discussion don't you think?




“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2009, 09:37:29 am »
Guitarman using words like seems/could/possibly/may makes for some really boring discussion don't you think?

Guitarman's response is valid and many people think the way he does.  I thought this way in my younger days as I fell for the 'pitch of the week' from the diet and health Charlatans.  Of course many things may/could/possibly be, but there is precious little in the way of unbiased facts or research to support these views. I prefer things that are supported by data that is statistically better than that of random chance or the placebo effect.  For me, this rules out the may's, could's, and possibly's.

I've stated my case, and others, including Guitarman, have stated theirs.  This is exactly what we should all want.  It is up to the readers to make their own decisions based on the arguments and information presented.

Lex

Offline rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
everlasting objective statistical figures?
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2009, 01:58:00 pm »

{the best overview complete w/ book icons = the last: endes gut, alles gut}

see a basic glossary at:
http://www.cna.org/isaac/Glossb.htm

on newtonian/linear dynamics:
the geometrical representation of a linear equation = a chart w/ 2 coordinates (x & y) in which all points form a line
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

the following is from
http://www.chaos.cornell.edu/
"The subject of nonlinear systems is wonderfully broad and has important applications in fields ranging from physics, mechanical engineering and computer science to the life sciences, sociology and finance. A mathematics student studying dynamical systems, a physiologist studying the heart and a computer scientist studying the internet are all studying nonlinear phenomena. Yet, they are unlikely to cross paths in traditional graduate programs. In contrast, the Nonlinear Systems Program brings together doctoral candidates enrolled in diverse graduate fields for broad multidisciplinary training in nonlinear systems early in their graduate careers. The program encourages students to engage in research that combines theory, computation and empirical data."

on complexity:
the following is from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
"A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties (behavior among the possible properties) not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.
"A complex system is any system featuring a large number of interacting components, whose aggregate activity is nonlinear and typically exhibits self-organization under selective pressures.
"A system’s complexity may be of one of two forms: disorganized complexity and organized complexity.[1] In essence, disorganized complexity is a matter of a very large number of parts, and organized complexity is a matter of the subject system (quite possibly with only a limited number of parts) exhibiting emergent properties.
"Examples of complex systems include ant colonies, human economies and social structures, climate, nervous systems, cells and living things, including human beings, as well as modern energy or telecommunication infrastructures. Indeed, many systems of interest to humans are complex systems.
"Complex systems are studied by many areas of natural science, mathematics, and social science. Fields that specialize in the interdisciplinary study of complex systems include systems theory, complexity theory, systems ecology, and cybernetics."


Types of complex systems:
~ chaotic systems
~ complex adaptive systems (stock market, biosphere, brain, immune system, animal body cells, political parties, etc.)
~ nonlinear systems

Features of complex systems:
~ fuzzy boundaries
~ openness
~ memory
~ nested configuration
~ network multiplicity
~ emergent properties & behavior (as opposed to reductionism)
~ nonlinearity
~ positive feedback

the following, better exposition, is from
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Complex_systems
"Complexity is emerging as a post-Newtonian paradigm for approaching from a unifying point of view a large body of phenomena occurring in systems constituted by several subunits, at the crossroads of physical, engineering, environmental, life and human sciences. For a long time the idea prevailed that the perception of systems of this kind as complex arises from incomplete information, in connection with the presence of a large number of variables and parameters masking the underlying regularities. Over the years experimental data and theoretical breakthroughs challenging this view have become available, showing that Complexity is on the contrary rooted into the fundamental laws of physics. This realization opens the way to a systematic study of Complexity, which constitutes today a highly interdisciplinary, fast growing branch of science, drawing on the cross-fertilization of concepts and tools from nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, probability and information theories, data analysis and numerical simulation.
"Traditionally, fundamental science explores the very small and the very large, both of which lie beyond man's everyday perception. The uniqueness of complex systems is that they have to do with a class of phenomena of fundamental importance in which the system and the observer may evolve on comparable time and space scales.
"A system perceived as complex induces a characteristic phenomenology the principal signature of which is the multiplicity of possible outcomes, endowing it with the capacity to choose, to explore and to adapt. This process can be manifested in different ways."


"time & gradient precede existence", me

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2009, 10:05:39 pm »
It seems that guittarman has more or less pointed out what I was going to say. I have to agree with it all, particularly the point that this is , ultimately, a forum devoted to making people healthy, the rawpalaeo aspect merely being the dominant theme. It is physically impossible, on any logical basis, for any one particular dietary approach(or even just 1 human being) to be able to provide 100% of the answers re health or anything else, as perfection doesn't exist in Nature.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #64 on: May 13, 2009, 10:29:03 pm »
Not sure I follow your reason, logic, or common sense.  If it was required to eat like to properly nourish like then cows couldn't exist at all because they eat grass.  As far as I know grass doesn't have a liver, heart, spleen, or anyother organ like a cow.  The argument that like nourishes or cures like is simplistic nonsense.  You are correct that many ancient (and some modern) cultures believe this stuff, but it doesn't make it true.  What is does do is line the pockets of charlatans peddling this stuff to the uneducated.

Herbivores naturally eat plants so that is not the same issue. However, as has been pointed out before, carnivores and omnivores, when eating animals, tend to favour eating the organ-meats first, implying that they have superior value. Indeed, there are cases where animals just eat the organ-meats and leave(usually in times of plenty - an example being those killer-whales who just eat the tongue of a whale calf as the grey whales go on their migration). Same goes for herbivores, they don't always just aimlessly eat any old plants, sometimes they will single out specific raw plants for consumption, preferring them over others, due to a need to cure a certain condition(re herbs) or just in order to get superior nutrition. In other words, someone with a helthy liver may well not need to eat liver and can get by on variety, but another person with a diseased liver is highly likely to benefit if they include raw liver in their diet. Now, if one was eating the liver of an alien being from the Andromeda Galaxy, one could claim that nutrient-ratios/dna was so widely different that this would be unhealthy or just not beneficial, but cattle, for example, are hardly widely different from humans. Even fish, as I recall, share 40% of DNA with humans.

Another obvious point re herbal medicine is that the consumption of herbs by a herbivore can influence the taste/nutritional quality of the resulting meat, dramatically. Gary has pointed out how his beef's taste, for example, is particularly influenced(positively) by getting his cattle to eat clover, for example. So, not only can we benefit from herbs, directly, by eating raw herbs, but we can also benefit, indirectly, from eating herbivores which feed on various raw herbs.

Quote
No change in tune. My statement was that I was no longer totally convinced that organ meats are necessary.  I still eat them in the form of my pet food mixture, but my observation has been that many who are doing zero carb are doing quite well on muscle meats alone.  I also know that people have survived for long periods on pemmican as their only food with no organ meats at all, and have seemingly maintained perfect health.  This sort of puts me in the position of the dying gangster who doesn't believe in God, calling in the priest for Last Rights just in case  - soooo, I continue eating my small bit of organ meats, just in case.  But I'm also willing to point out that there is a good bit of evidence that my previous reasoning on the need for organ meats may be pure folly. 

Well, like I said, the fact that wild animals (non-herbivores)favour the organ-meats, first, does make it rather clear that eating just raw muscle-meats is a bad idea. And given mine and others' concerns re the highly toxic nature of pemmican, I seriously doubt any supposed health-claims by such pemmican-eaters. I mean, lightly-cooked fat is one thing, but rendered fat is far, far worse, as animal fats are particularly affected by heat re the creation of heat-created toxins.

As regards organ-meats, I tend to lean on the theory that they're particularly needed for specific things like fertility/growth-rate etc.(it's interesting to note that western sperm-counts have fallen dramatically over time, at about the same time people gave up on eating organ-meats(albeit cooked).

Quote
I have little experience or real knowledge in this area so must defer to others.  My only actual experience in animal self medication that I can think of is that my cat chews grass when she gets fur balls and this makes her vomit the mess (including the bit of grass she ate) all over the rug.  If this qualifies for animal self medication then I must admit that my cat 'medicates' herself with grass.  I haven't had a fur ball lately and when I drank wheatgrass juice or vegetable juices it just made me nauseous, dizzy, and gave me loose smelly stools.  I decided to stop self-medicating based on this experience.  I've felt much better ever since.

Self-medication among animals isn't merely limited to carnivores eating grass. It's a standard practice among all animals. There are many other theories re cats eating grass(eg:-

"In his book, "Cat World" Desmond Morris points out that it is the juices of the grass that  cats are interested in. It is known that these juices contain  folic acid, a vitamin that is vital to cats as it helps in the production of haemoglobin. For a cat to be deficient in folic acid would stunt its growth and may cause anaemia."

The field of animal-self-medication is now such a big thing that it now has its own name and is currently a big field of study:-

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publications/zoogoer/1998/1/reallywildremedies.cfm

It's called "zoopharmacognosy" and it seems that animals use herbs for all sorts of reasons, to induce labour, to get rid of parasites, to speed up healing of wounds, to get rid of insects etc. etc. Now, a raw animal food diet can do a lot of things but not those.

Quote
I only pointed out that a diet of raw animal foods of all types seem to increase libido in everyone who tries it.  I haven't personally noticed raw oysters doing much more for me than a diet of raw red meat and fat - but that is my experience, YMMV.

Lex

I agree that a RAF/RVAF diet can improve libido. However, the fact that so many RPDers report having an increased sex-drive when they include raw oysters,  over and above what they normally feel on a RPD diet, that makes it clear that singling out specific foods for specific conditions makes perfect sense.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 04:34:08 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #65 on: May 13, 2009, 10:29:44 pm »
Great stuff, guittarman, you made a lot of good points I was going to mention.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #66 on: May 14, 2009, 01:19:44 pm »
Cats eat grass for folic acid?  or they could just eat meat...


“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2009, 03:14:38 am »
Herbivores naturally eat plants so that is not the same issue. However, as has been pointed out before, carnivores and omnivores, when eating animals, tend to favour eating the organ-meats first, implying that they have superior value. Indeed, there are cases where animals just eat the organ-meats and leave(usually in times of plenty - an example being those killer-whales who just eat the tongue of a whale calf as the grey whales go on their migration). Same goes for herbivores, they don't always just aimlessly eat any old plants, sometimes they will single out specific raw plants for consumption, preferring them over others, due to a need to cure a certain condition(re herbs) or just in order to get superior nutrition. In other words, someone with a healthy liver may well not need to eat liver and can get by on variety, but another person with a diseased liver is highly likely to benefit if they include raw liver in their diet. Now, if one was eating the liver of an alien being from the Andromeda Galaxy, one could claim that nutrient-ratios/dna was so widely different that this would be unhealthy or just not beneficial, but cattle, for example, are hardly widely different from humans. Even fish, as I recall, share 40% of DNA with humans.

I've read much of this same stuff from the popular health gurus and none of it is ever supported by actual unbiased studies.  Most people prefer Twinkies, french fries, and catsup to real healthful food.  This doesn't mean that these things are in anyway supplying some important missing nutritional element.  I also have some experience with coyotes and they don't seem to exhibit the same behavior that you discuss above.  They often leave some of the entrails in favor of muscle meats.  I've never believed and still don't believe this idea that we hunted large animals, ate the organs, and then let 80% of the animal go to waste.  Makes zero sense considering the effort required to take down the animal.  But you may believe whatever you wish.

Another obvious point re herbal medicine is that the consumption of herbs by a herbivore can influence the taste/nutritional quality of the resulting meat, dramatically. Gary has pointed out how his beef's taste, for example, is particularly influenced(positively) by getting his cattle to eat clover, for example. So, not only can we benefit from herbs, directly, by eating raw herbs, but we can also benefit, indirectly, from eating herbivores which feed on various raw herbs.

Yup, the taste of the meat is dependent on the food the animal eats.  I've eaten clover, lucern, wheat grass, oat grass and other such stuff myself, and each has a flavor all it's own.  Some are very sweet with a high level of monsaccarides - especially early in their development when they are tender.  Preferring different grasses as they become available is far from medicinal in nature. 

Well, like I said, the fact that wild animals (non-herbivores)favour the organ-meats, first, does make it rather clear that eating just raw muscle-meats is a bad idea. And given mine and others' concerns re the highly toxic nature of pemmican, I seriously doubt any supposed health-claims by such pemmican-eaters. I mean, lightly-cooked fat is one thing, but rendered fat is far, far worse, as animal fats are particularly affected by heat re the creation of heat-created toxins.

As regards organ-meats, I tend to lean on the theory that they're particularly needed for specific things like fertility/growth-rate etc.(it's interesting to note that western sperm-counts have fallen dramatically over time, at about the same time people gave up on eating organ-meats(albeit cooked).

Again, my personal experience with wild coyotes doesn't support the all organ meats all the time belief.  I also find it interesting that you state pemmican is highly toxic in nature, however I've seen no evidence of this at all.  What proof do you have that rendered animal fat is toxic to humans?  I've seen theories put forth about free radicals and broken fatty acid chains, but no one has ever demonstrated any of this to cause any provable health problem.  In fact, most people thrive on rendered animal fat - especially when compared to any type of vegetable fat.  Do I believe that raw fat is better than rendered fat? Of course, but I see no evidence of rendered fat being "toxic" which is another word for poisonous - pure theoretical nonsense.

Self-medication among animals isn't merely limited to carnivores eating grass. It's a standard practice among all animals. There are many other theories re cats eating grass(eg:-

"In his book, "Cat World" Desmond Morris points out that it is the juices of the grass that  cats are interested in. It is known that these juices contain  folic acid, a vitamin that is vital to cats as it helps in the production of haemoglobin. For a cat to be deficient in folic acid would stunt its growth and may cause anaemia."

The field of animal-self-medication is now such a big thing that it now has its own name and is currently a big field of study:-

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publications/zoogoer/1998/1/reallywildremedies.cfm

It's called "zoopharmacognosy" and it seems that animals use herbs for all sorts of reasons, to induce labour, to get rid of parasites, to speed up healing of wounds, to get rid of insects etc. etc. Now, a raw animal food diet can do a lot of things but not those.

Sure would like to know how Mr. Morris KNOWS what the cats are interested in.  The grass that ends up on my carpet with my cat's fur balls is barely bruised so precious little in the way of any nutrient would be released and then the whole mess is vomited anyway.  Folic acid?  I don't care what Mr Morris pedigree is, that statement makes no sense.  Far more likely the grass acts as an irritant - period.  I've read a bit of Desmond Morris and found much of what he says is just his belief and are completely unsupported by any facts.  His latest work on babies is just full of such tripe.  I guess he's trying to be the Dr Spock of this generation and Dr. Spock's theories, once accepted as gospel, have been proven to be mostly worthless nonsense as well.   Because something is written, doesn't make it so - regardless of the educational level of the author.

"Zoopharmacognosy" and the link you provided appears to be another one of those new 'sciences' designed to extract money from the pockets of taxpayers to fund research grants.  None of this makes me believe that we have any business in prescribing herbal medicines to terminally ill patients because a monkey eats bitter pith wood, or cows perfer tender sweet clover in in the spring time.

I agree that a RAF/RVAF diet can improve libido. However, the fact that so many RPDers report having an increased sex-drive when they include raw oysters,  over and above what they normally feel on a RPD diet, that makes it clear that singling out specific foods for specific conditions makes perfect sense.

To you it makes sense.  My personal experience says that it's mostly nonsense combined with a large measure of wishful thinking.  I used to believe much of this stuff as well, and recounted the wonderful benefits of each homeopathic remedy to anyone who would listen - even when my actual experience showed that they seldom had any value whatsoever.  It's the power of suggestion.

Lex

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #68 on: May 15, 2009, 05:36:13 pm »
I've read much of this same stuff from the popular health gurus and none of it is ever supported by actual unbiased studies.  Most people prefer Twinkies, french fries, and catsup to real healthful food.  This doesn't mean that these things are in anyway supplying some important missing nutritional element.  I also have some experience with coyotes and they don't seem to exhibit the same behavior that you discuss above.  They often leave some of the entrails in favor of muscle meats.  I've never believed and still don't believe this idea that we hunted large animals, ate the organs, and then let 80% of the animal go to waste.  Makes zero sense considering the effort required to take down the animal.  But you may believe whatever you wish.

I never said that palaeo humans routinely left the muscle-meats - after all, most of the time they were in famine mode and ate anything available - it's just that hunter-gatherers routinely get at the organ-meats first, as large numbers of anthroplogists have noted numerous times. And your experience re coyotoes goes against  the vast majority of wildlife experts who have seen the exact opposite and who have also published numerous reports re animals self-medicating.Secondly, the comments re twinkies is irrelevant to wild animals  and patently absurd as, when they're not in contact with man, they don't have access to unnatural foods.

As regards the studies, there are actually a number out there, along with several books published by wildlife experts, despite the fact that zoopharmacognosy(study of self-medication re herbs among wild animals) is relatively recent(eg:-
http://www.ethnobotany.nl/research_abstract.htm

), so I'm afraid you're wrong re this.

Quote
Yup, the taste of the meat is dependent on the food the animal eats.  I've eaten clover, lucern, wheat grass, oat grass and other such stuff myself, and each has a flavor all it's own.  Some are very sweet with a high level of monsaccarides - especially early in their development when they are tender.  Preferring different grasses as they become available is far from medicinal in nature. 

Not true at all. Wild animals, much like humans, go in for variety, when they sense they're ill, as they sense something lacking in their diet. It's called instinct. And the point re different herbs/plants giving different nutrient profiles to meats is highly important as it shows that not all grassfed meat is exactly the same, and that we can benefit indirectly by eating such meats.

Quote
Again, my personal experience with wild coyotes doesn't support the all organ meats all the time belief.  I also find it interesting that you state pemmican is highly toxic in nature, however I've seen no evidence of this at all.  What proof do you have that rendered animal fat is toxic to humans?  I've seen theories put forth about free radicals and broken fatty acid chains, but no one has ever demonstrated any of this to cause any provable health problem.  In fact, most people thrive on rendered animal fat - especially when compared to any type of vegetable fat.  Do I believe that raw fat is better than rendered fat? Of course, but I see no evidence of rendered fat being "toxic" which is another word for poisonous - pure theoretical nonsense.

Not theoretical nonsense at all! In fact, numerous studies on humans and animals(by now 1,000s) have shown that cooked animal fats are the unhealthiest of all foods as the toxins created from them form any number of unhealthy toxic compounds such as Advanced Glycation End Products, heterocylcic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc. I've already provided dozenss of such studies, among the 1000s available by now, here's one example among many:-
http://www.newcastleyoga.com.au/links/Food%20AGEs%20text.pdf


Notice that in all such studies, they point out, again and again, that the higher the temperature the animal food is cooked at the more heat-created toxins such as AGEs are created. So rendered fat is indeed  pure poison, almost as bad as cooked trans-fats. The only saving grace re pemmican is that the lean meat with it can be raw(oh, and that some of the people who buy or make pemmican ensure it's from grassfed cattle). Well, all I can say is, I'm glad that this topic is in the hot topics section as all this pro-cooked-food guff is highly inappropriate.


Quote
Sure would like to know how Mr. Morris KNOWS what the cats are interested in.  The grass that ends up on my carpet with my cat's fur balls is barely bruised so precious little in the way of any nutrient would be released and then the whole mess is vomited anyway.  Folic acid?  I don't care what Mr Morris pedigree is, that statement makes no sense.  Far more likely the grass acts as an irritant - period.  I've read a bit of Desmond Morris and found much of what he says is just his belief and are completely unsupported by any facts.  His latest work on babies is just full of such tripe.  I guess he's trying to be the Dr Spock of this generation and Dr. Spock's theories, once accepted as gospel, have been proven to be mostly worthless nonsense as well.   Because something is written, doesn't make it so - regardless of the educational level of the author.

I didn't say that was the definitive answer, merely as 1 example among dozens of others for cats eating grass. And if it is indeed meant as an irritant, then fine it's a herb useful for getting rid of unwanted stomach-contents that the cat doesn't want. That is an example of herbal medicine, whether you like it or not.

Quote
"Zoopharmacognosy" and the link you provided appears to be another one of those new 'sciences' designed to extract money from the pockets of taxpayers to fund research grants.  None of this makes me believe that we have any business in prescribing herbal medicines to terminally ill patients because a monkey eats bitter pith wood, or cows perfer tender sweet clover in in the spring time.

To you it makes sense.  My personal experience says that it's mostly nonsense combined with a large measure of wishful thinking.  I used to believe much of this stuff as well, and recounted the wonderful benefits of each homeopathic remedy to anyone who would listen - even when my actual experience showed that they seldom had any value whatsoever.  It's the power of suggestion.
Lex

My own personal experience with homeopathy is that it does indeed have a dramatic beneficial effect on the symptoms one has(provided one takes the correct homeopathic product relevant to the condition) but never cures the underlying illness. Aajonus seems to be of like mind, apparently, and many others I've come across, concur.

As regards zoopharmacognosy, unfortunately, your beliefs are somewhat easily countered by the mass of evidence supporting the field now that science has advanced sufficiently to determine exactly what beneficial effects there are of the herbs these wild animals deliberately select at certain times. And in no way can zoopharmacognosy be compared to homeopathy as it's a field widely respected in the scientific community now that there's too much evidence of it, for it to be convincingly refuted.

What I find so amusing is that you attack what you call "New-Age" beliefs, yet you yourself display clear New-Age sentiments by attacking such a mainstream field as zoopharmacognosy, something now widely accepted in the field of biology.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2009, 02:07:43 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2009, 09:03:37 am »
My cat chews on grass sometimes and the way it looks to me is that he does it because it's fun. I found a bird feather today on a walk with him and he chased it when I threw it and then chewed on it while holding it down.

About rendered fat being toxic, what exactly is a toxin Tyler? I was under the impression it was something that caused negative effects at a certain dose, while poison is something that kills at a certain dose. Well we all know that anything at a certain dose can do both of those things, including water and protein. So how can "scientists" say that this or that chemical is a "toxin" and some other chemical isn't? Everything has a toxic dose. The only question is, what is that dose, and what are the toxic effects? Calling a chemical "toxic" is an ignorant shorthand that has it's place in general conversation but not scientific discussion.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2009, 05:28:50 pm »
My cat chews on grass sometimes and the way it looks to me is that he does it because it's fun. I found a bird feather today on a walk with him and he chased it when I threw it and then chewed on it while holding it down.

About rendered fat being toxic, what exactly is a toxin Tyler? I was under the impression it was something that caused negative effects at a certain dose, while poison is something that kills at a certain dose. Well we all know that anything at a certain dose can do both of those things, including water and protein. So how can "scientists" say that this or that chemical is a "toxin" and some other chemical isn't? Everything has a toxic dose. The only question is, what is that dose, and what are the toxic effects? Calling a chemical "toxic" is an ignorant shorthand that has it's place in general conversation but not scientific discussion.

First of all, the words toxin and poison are synonymous, meaning the same thing. The word poison doesn't only refer to something that kills at a certain dose , as there are poisons which  merely cause injury or illness of some kind.

As regards the issue re everything being toxic at a high enough dose, that's not relevant to the discussion. After all, anything that is beneficial, like water or even raw meats, will be harmful if eaten in vast amounts that the body cannot handle. That doesn't, however, imply that raw meat and water are toxic, as the harm done is only caused by the human body's inability to handle more than a certain amount of these beneficial nutrients.

As regards the issue re heat-created toxins, a lot of cooked-food-advocates make the same point re excess water/toxicity. Unfortunately, it's based on a flaw of assumption as cooked-foods, unlike raw foods, are already somewhat toxic even in minor quantities, due to the heat-created toxins.In effect, you're saying that because rendered fat isn't as toxic as , say, meat burnt for hours until it becomes pure charcoal, that it must, therefore, be acceptable. That's a false premise. Besides, the fact that scientists have already shown that even boling creates such toxins, and the fact that scientists have also shown conclusive links between consumption of such toxin-rich cooked/processed foods and a higher incidence of many illnesses, means that there isn't any reason to defend rendered animal fat, either.

About the only arguments that could be made against my points above would be some scientific study that at least claimed either that a) humans have somehow developed a magical resistance towards such heat-created toxins or b) that humans are so adapted to eating cooked-foods that they now need to eat some heat-created toxins(from cooked-foods) in order to be healthy. This is going to take some doing given the many 1,000s of scientific studies out there which show that heat-created toxins in cooked foods are extremely unhealthy.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 12:25:32 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2009, 12:22:45 am »
Tyler,
I read the study that you posted about AGE's etc, and then did a bit of further research on my own.  All the studies I found only stated that AGE's are "believed" to have some negative affect or are believed to be "implicated" in health issues such as aging and heart disease, but no actual direct link or proof of cause and effect has been actually proven.

The specific study you site just made an effort to determine levels of AGE's in certain foods and again made no direct correlation of AGE's to any specific health conditions other than stating that it is believed to have some negative contributory effect.  To extrapolate from this that pemmican made from rendered beef fat is "highly toxic" is a bit of a stretch - especially since no direct level of toxicity can be demostrated at all.

Lex

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2009, 01:21:13 am »
Tyler,
I read the study that you posted about AGE's etc, and then did a bit of further research on my own.  All the studies I found only stated that AGE's are "believed" to have some negative affect or are believed to be "implicated" in health issues such as aging and heart disease, but no actual direct link or proof of cause and effect has been actually proven.
Lex
[/quote]

Responsible and authentic scientific studies never once state something as a fact, by themselves. They merely indicate strong links or connections. This is because science does NOT advance as a result of just 1 study, but as a result of 100s or 1000s(ie concensus). So, the fact that 1,000s of different  studies variously  damn AGEs and other heat-created toxins as extremely damaging to human health(re diabetes or whatever condition), with no single study proving the so-called "benefits"(lol) of consuming toxin-rich(ie "AGE-rich") cooked-foods like pemmican  means that you have not only substantial data showing damage to cooked-food re such heat-created toxins but also you have no evidence to show the benefits of having such heat-created toxins in foods like pemmican, either. Case closed.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2009, 01:39:23 pm »
Lex


Responsible and authentic scientific studies never once state something as a fact, by themselves. They merely indicate strong links or connections. This is because science does NOT advance as a result of just 1 study, but as a result of 100s or 1000s(ie concensus). So, the fact that 1,000s of different  studies variously  damn AGEs and other heat-created toxins as extremely damaging to human health(re diabetes or whatever condition), with no single study proving the so-called "benefits"(lol) of consuming toxin-rich(ie "AGE-rich") cooked-foods like pemmican  means that you have not only substantial data showing damage to cooked-food re such heat-created toxins but also you have no evidence to show the benefits of having such heat-created toxins in foods like pemmican, either. Case closed.

Case may be closed for you, but since none of the studies show any actual toxic effect from AGE's in the real world, and only discuss "theoretical" damage that free radicals "might" cause, the jury is still out for me.  Remember all those "1,000s of studies" that showed "strong links" or "connections" of cholesterol with heart disease - and they were all nonsense.  The bigger picture says carbs and high levels of blood glucose are far more damaging than AGEs and can be proven to cause undesired responses in the body.

For health, I'll take cooked meat and fat anyday over carbs of any kind.  You see, I'm far more concerned with getting the MACRO nutrients right, (eating fat and protein and eliminating most carbohydrates) than agonizing over relatively minor issues like freezing, dehydrating, or even cooking.  If you're eating crap to begin with, freezing, dehydrating, and cooking are totaly irrelevent.   Supposed toxins like AGEs and free radicals are a waste of time to worry over and divert attention away from the far more important issue of eating the correct foods in the first place.

Lex

JaX

  • Guest
Re: Animal Medicine Issue
« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2009, 07:25:47 pm »
Quote
Heterocyclic Amines in Cooked Meats

Recent studies have further evaluated the relationship associated with methods of cooking meat and the development of specific types of cancer. One study conducted by researchers from NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics found a link between individuals with stomach cancer and the consumption of cooked meats. The researchers assessed the diets and cooking habits of 176 people diagnosed with stomach cancer and 503 people without cancer. The researchers found that those who ate their beef medium-well or well-done had more than three times the risk of stomach cancer than those who ate their beef rare or medium-rare. They also found that people who ate beef four or more times a week had more than twice the risk of stomach cancer than those consuming beef less frequently. Additional studies have shown that an increased risk of developing colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried, or barbequed meats ...

References

1. Adamson RH, Thorgeirsson UP. Carcinogens in foods: Heterocyclic amines and cancer and heart disease. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1995; 369:211-220.
   
2. Adamson RH, Thorgeirsson UP, Snyderwine EG, et al. Carcinogenicity of 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f] quinoline in nonhuman primates: Induction of tumors in three macaques. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research 1990; 81(1):10-14.
   
3. Bjeldanes LF, Morris MM, Felton JS, et al. Mutagens from the cooking of food. II. Survey by Ames/Salmonella test of mutagen formation in the major protein-rich foods of the American diet. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1982; 20(4):357-363.
   
4. Bjeldanes LF, Morris MM, Timourian H, Hatch FT. Effects of meat composition and cooking conditions on mutagen formation in fried ground beef. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1983; 31(1):18-21.
   
5. Bogen KT. Cancer potencies of heterocyclic amines found in cooked foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1994; 32(6):505-515.
   
6. Dolara P, Commoner B, Vithayathil A, et al. The effect of temperature on the formation of mutagens in heated beef stock and cooked ground beef. Mutation Research 1979; 60(3):231-237.
   
7. Esumi H, Ohgaki H, Kohzen E, Takayama S, Sugimura T. Induction of lymphoma in CDF1 mice by the food mutagen, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b] pyridine. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research 1989; 80(12):1176-1178.
   
8. Felton JS, Fultz E, Dolbeare FA, Knize MG. Effect of microwave pretreatment on heterocyclic aromatic amine mutagens/carcinogens in fried beef patties. Food Chemical Toxicology 1994; 32(10):897-903.
   
9. Felton JS, Knize MG, Shen NH, et al. Identification of the mutagens in cooked beef. Environmental Health Perspectives 1986; 67:17-24.
 
10. Felton JS, Knize MG, Wood C, et al. Isolation and characterization of new mutagens from fried ground beef. Carcinogenesis 1984; 5(1):95-102.
 
11. Hayatsu, H. Mutagens in food: detection and prevention. Florida, CRC Press, 1991.
 
12. Knize MG, Sinha R, Rothman N, et al. Heterocyclic amine content in fast-food meat products. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1995; 33(7):545-551.
 
13. Layton DW, Bogen KT, Knize MG, et al. Cancer risk of heterocyclic amines in cooked foods: An analysis and implications for research. Carcinogenesis 1995; 16(1):39-52.
 
14. Murray S, Gooderham NJ, Boobis AR, Davies DS. Detection and measurement of MelQx in human urine after ingestion of a cooked meat meal. Carcinogenesis 1989; 10(4):763-765.
 
15. Muscat JE, Wynder EL. The consumption of well-done meat and the risk of colorectal cancer. American Journal of Public Health 1994; 84(5):856-858.
 
16. Nader CJ, Spencer LK, Weller RA. Mutagen production during pan-broiling compared with microwave irradiation of beef. Cancer Letter 1981; 13(2):147-152.
 
17. Pariza MW, Ashoor SH, Chu FS, Lund DB. Effects of temperature and time on mutagen formation in pan-fried hamburger. Cancer Letter 1979; 7(2-3):63-69.
 
18. Sinha R, Rothman N, Brown ED, et al. High concentrations of the carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) occur in chicken but are dependent on cooking method. Cancer Research 1995; 55(20):4516-4519.
 
19. Snyderwine EG. Some perspectives on the nutritional aspects of breast cancer research. Food-derived heterocyclic amines as etiologic agents in human mammary cancer. Cancer 1994; 74(3 Supplement):1070-1077.
 
20. Stavric B. Biological significance of trace levels of mutagenic heterocycylic aromatic amines in human diet: A critical review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1994; 32(10):977-994.
 
21. Wakabayashi K, Ushiyama H, Takahashi M, et al. Exposure to heterocyclic amines. Environmental Health Perspectives 1993; 99:129-134.




 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk