Author Topic: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons  (Read 7366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

carnivore

  • Guest
Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« on: August 19, 2009, 12:36:56 am »
Is-it a hoax ?  ???

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/8/16/raw-paleo-and-zero-carb-right-for-the-wrong-reasons.html

"Whether we have been eating cooked food for merely 250,000 years or millions as Richard Wrangham claims, there has been plenty of time for us to adapt to cooking."

"I've seen no medical evidence cooking is bad"




Offline SkinnyDevil

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Gender: Male
  • "...embrace your fear..."
    • View Profile
    • Skinny Devil Music Lab
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2009, 01:16:05 am »
Ultimately, I don't care at all about evidence in the raw v cooked debate. I eat raw not because I'm trying to be something (more paleo, more green, more [insert group here]), but because I feel better eating raw than eating cooked foods.

I'm only mildly interested in the debate at all, though I find some things of extreme interest (like "lactose intolerance" only exists when studying people drinking pasteurized milk, for example, or the data on good bacteria killed off by cooking while generating carcinogens).

Historical data can be a good way to explore options, but ultimately your body will not lie to you. You need only listen.
-
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab
http://www.skinnydevil.com

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 01:56:34 am »
I'm afraid that lactose-intolerance does indeed exist among raw-dairy consumers. It's less of a problem, but still prevalent. That's why some people can't even tolerate raw butter despite the fact that it contains only traces of lactose in it.
"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: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 02:16:18 am »
My comments:- first off, I'm not happy with the author's mention of paleolithic nutrition since his diet is clearly not palaeolithic as it seems to involve plenty of dairy.

Then there's his claim that there is no sufficient evidence against cooking. Actually, it's the other way around, there is virtually fuck all evidence in favour of cooking. The only one I can think of is the remote possibility of getting a(human-oriented) parasite via raw meat from a sickly animal. Yet, reports of such are extremely rare in the RVAF community.

Firstly, it took us several  million years to adapt to a diet of motly raw animal foods. And this was an adaptation to natural, RAW foods. Adaptation to such a radically different food such as cooked food is not even guaranteed, therefore, and, even in the unlikelihood that it was, would have to take far longer to adapt to than any equivalent raw food.

Secondly, for the claims that we are fully adapted to cooking to hold up at all, one would have to accept all of the following scenarios:-

1) Humans are either completely adapted to the heat-created toxins from cooking such as AGEs(advanced glycation end products), heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc, or we actually need to consume these toxins. Given that such heat-created toxins have been shown, by study after study, to be extremely harmful re human health, it becomes clear that we cannot possibly be adapted to a cooked diet. So that claim is dead-in-the-water.

2) Humans don't need enzymes in raw foods for digestion. Given the frequent need for older people on cooked diets to go in for enzyme supplements to help heal their weakened digestive system, that claim is very difficult to prove for pro-cooked-foodists.

3) Humans don't need the bacteria in raw foods. Again, many older people require bacteria in the form of probiotics to make up for the harm done to their digestive systems by the lack of bacteria in their mostly-cooked diets. So, again, this claim is difficult to prove.

For those who're interested in the intellectual debunking of the archaeological claims re cooking foods, here's a couple of links:-
http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/

http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/non-wrangham-theories-of-cooking-debunked/

But I agree, overall. The main criteria is that we ourselves do very badly on cooked diets and do far better on raw. After all, the vast majority of RVAFers only do such raw diets because they've failed, healthwise, on every other kind of diet, beforehand. Few people would willingly go rawpalaeo otherwise, given the social stigmas involved.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 04:47:01 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 goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 06:39:17 am »
Kurt Harris is reading our forum.  Maybe he's a member.
Keep reading Kurt.
I personally am on raw paleo because it works for me, it gave me a 2nd life, a better life than the previous one.
I just stumbled onto this diet and did not know it was named this way.
Self experimentation rules!
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 invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 07:22:38 am »
It's obvious to me raw meat grosses out this man and he tries to justify cooking inspite of all evidence because he wants to cook.

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 07:37:42 am »
does anyone have something really good on protein digestion? I am sick of reading people saying cooking and denaturing protein makes it more bioavailable and easier to digest - it is obviously the opposite.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 09:16:54 am »
Quote
Dr. Harris wrote: "I've seen the forum but not read any but a handful of posts."

I was going to respond tit-for-tat to Dr. Harris' trashing of our WOE and us with a comment at his site, as I found his article and much of the comments that followed it to unfairly and unwisely make many false assumptions about the RPD and us before getting to know both better (a violation of Steven Covey's sage advice: "seek first to understand, then to be understood")--especially given that I had made some positive comments about his articles in the past. However, I thought better of responding in kind.

Apparently his diatribe was motivated by his noticing that a number of us had become his readers (I'm surprised by his flaying of his own new readers--is he afraid that his site will be tainted by association with raw-dieting readers?). Let's call a truce before this gets carried away. The Paleo nutrition movement is small and fractured as it is. Do we really need more internecine wars? The Powers That Be will rend both Dr. Harris and us in the same pot once we get on their radar. Shouldn't we save most of the criticism for those who oppose the basic concept of trying to eat in accordance with our biological heritage and shouldn't express most of our critiques here to give our site more hits, if we really do wish to promote it?

Perhaps we should try to focus on answering--either here or in private communication--any questions he may have, rather than responding to his criticisms at his site--which boosts his hits. Let us respond to his negative assumptions with magnanimity and knowledge gained through experience and inquiry into scientific research. Perhaps he will also respond to our questions, if he believes that his own claims are included in those that "should be subject to thoughtful skepticism." If he displays no interest in learning anything about us, then we can wash our hands of him, or refute his assumptions here rather than at his site.

So may I suggest that one of our forum administrators ask him to submit any questions he may have about the RPD and us to our forum--which we can then work together to provide well-reasoned answers to? And to our answers we could then add questions of our own, and thus begin a polite and rational discussion.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 09:30:23 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

carnivore

  • Guest
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 01:26:55 pm »
Apparently his opinion on cook vs raw food is already made. He does not want to see the numerous evidences of the dangers of cooking, and he believes that we had plenty of time to adapt to cooked food!

Unfortunately I don't see any scientific evidences in his article to support these claims.

He has the right to continue eating cooked food, but as a scientist, he has not the right to spread wrong and dishonest information.




I was going to respond tit-for-tat to Dr. Harris' trashing of our WOE and us with a comment at his site, as I found his article and much of the comments that followed it to unfairly and unwisely make many false assumptions about the RPD and us before getting to know both better (a violation of Steven Covey's sage advice: "seek first to understand, then to be understood")--especially given that I had made some positive comments about his articles in the past. However, I thought better of responding in kind.

Apparently his diatribe was motivated by his noticing that a number of us had become his readers (I'm surprised by his flaying of his own new readers--is he afraid that his site will be tainted by association with raw-dieting readers?). Let's call a truce before this gets carried away. The Paleo nutrition movement is small and fractured as it is. Do we really need more internecine wars? The Powers That Be will rend both Dr. Harris and us in the same pot once we get on their radar. Shouldn't we save most of the criticism for those who oppose the basic concept of trying to eat in accordance with our biological heritage and shouldn't express most of our critiques here to give our site more hits, if we really do wish to promote it?

Perhaps we should try to focus on answering--either here or in private communication--any questions he may have, rather than responding to his criticisms at his site--which boosts his hits. Let us respond to his negative assumptions with magnanimity and knowledge gained through experience and inquiry into scientific research. Perhaps he will also respond to our questions, if he believes that his own claims are included in those that "should be subject to thoughtful skepticism." If he displays no interest in learning anything about us, then we can wash our hands of him, or refute his assumptions here rather than at his site.

So may I suggest that one of our forum administrators ask him to submit any questions he may have about the RPD and us to our forum--which we can then work together to provide well-reasoned answers to? And to our answers we could then add questions of our own, and thus begin a polite and rational discussion.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 04:52:12 pm »
does anyone have something really good on protein digestion? I am sick of reading people saying cooking and denaturing protein makes it more bioavailable and easier to digest - it is obviously the opposite.

My essay on the dangers of cooking(on the child boards of this forum) refers to 1 scientific study which shows that meat protein gets denatured by cooking. Only non-palaeo foods like grains and beans have their protein better digested after cooking.

Re intelligent discussion:- This guy has no interest in facts. His sole interest is in getting more members for his forum. Naturally, since he has no interest in raw, he wants to convert those rawist members.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 08:08:20 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 rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2009, 12:04:55 pm »

from
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/8/16/raw-paleo-and-zero-carb-right-for-the-wrong-reasons.html

Where does the raw is better idea even come from? It seems based on analogical or simple syllogistic reasoning rather than science ...

PaNu is about metabolism, not food re-enactment ...

Raw paleo is based on a completely unsupported dogma against cooking that has zero basis in biochemistry, medical science or paleoanthropology. It is based on weak analogical argument only ...

Saying that butter or cream are not "paleo" because they were not consumed way back when, when these animal based sources are nearly pure animal fat is just nonsensical ...

My own diet is nearly zero carb some days but I have never claimed that that is is better than 10 or even 20% carbs. I am not saying it is not, I just don't have evidence that it is.
I eat my meat so rare it is almost raw ...

... the way to the EM2 is to avoid the neolithic agents of wheat, linoleic acid and fructose, not through duplicating a particular dietary composition from the paleolithic period ...

Fructose is historically paleo and is metabolic poison ...

I interpret diseases in the present in the light of what we know about metabolism and in light of what we know about evolution. It is simplistic to stamp foods "paleo" or "non-paleo" and assume that equates to health.
I state explicitly that it is the paleolithic internal hormonal and metabolic milieu I believe is healthy, not a checklist of particular foods eaten. Why is that hard to understand? It is the paleolithic metabolism, not the particular foods.
Do you eat Mammoth and grubs? Do you fast for several days at a time to mimic the experience of paleo man? Do you practice infanticide because paleo man did this? Do you shun central heating so that you burn more calories at night to keep your insulin levels low? Do you think we should elevate our homicide rate to 25% so that we can have a social environment similar to paleo man?
What people ate way back can be a a clue to what is wrong now, never an endorsement  ...

If you want to practice a cult of food re-enactment and fool yourself that fructose is good because paleo man ate honey when he could, and clarified butter which is nothing but animal fat is bad because paleo man did not eat it, go ahead.
How can you possibly eat beef? Paleo man ate Aurochs, not the modern beef cattle which have been artificially selected over thousands of years and which has proteins and fatty acid ratios that are almost certainly different from what was present in the paleolithic period ...

Start with medical science and then look at paleoanthropology. Then you can have a science instead of a fetishistic cult that is accidently healthy.
Do I believe that cooking lipids and sugars can create ALEs and AGEs? Yes.
Do I believe that consuming ALEs and AGEs is an important cause of cancer or oxidative stress inside our bodies, more important than the hormonal milieu and metabolic processes inside our bodies? No.
Do I believe nutrients can be destroyed by enough heat (overcooking). Of course they can. Do I believe that light cooking substantially degrades the nutritive value of food? No. It actually improves the bioavailability and digestive efficiency on a net basis.
Do I believe enzymes can be denatured by heat? Well, any protein can. What do you think happens to every protein (including enzymes, which are proteins) when you eat them? ...

I was under the impression that some raw foodists think cooking is bad but eating rotten meat is good. What do you think is happening to the proteins and enzymes as the meat gets stinky? How about denatured proteins and degredation of the meat by bacteria? ...

I am not arguing against raw, I am arguing against the dogma that cooking per se is unheatlhy ...


"time & gradient precede existence", me

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2009, 01:37:49 pm »
I posted this comment:

Hi Kurt,

I became the family healer after I cured myself and learned healing principles. It just so happens that when the chips are down, when people are truly sick, many times 100% raw paleo food is the most powerful answer.
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 TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2009, 08:14:59 pm »
He does make some truly absurd comparisons(such as equating cooking meat to aging raw meats). I mean what happens with cooking is way harsher, plus aging the raw meats increases the bacteria-count and improves the digestibility of the raw meats, unlike what happens with cooking.

Then there's the extreme he takes in suggesting that we cannot follow a palaeolithic diet. Not true. Palaeo cavemen would eat a wide variety of foods, not just mammoths or aurochs. They would even eat small mammals like rabbits/hares/goats etc, which are all still eaten today(indeed hares, for example, are a staple of mine). Besides, the palaeolithic diet is about eating foods similiar to the palaeolithic era, not exactly the same. If we're eating raw grassfed meat from a kangaroo instead of a mammoth, it doesn't change the fact that we're following a palaeo diet.

*I'm moving this to the hot topics forum. as it's more appropriate there.*
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 04:45:52 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 SkinnyDevil

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Gender: Male
  • "...embrace your fear..."
    • View Profile
    • Skinny Devil Music Lab
Re: Raw paleo and Zero Carb : right for wrong reasons
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2009, 08:31:22 pm »
He makes tons of false assumptions in his article about RPD and us, and then admits near the end that he hasn't even read many of our posts (and likely hasn't researched RPD). This lack of open-mindedness, objectivity, curiosity and research suggests that it is he who is anti-science, not us. I challenge him to demonstrate at least a modicum of respect for the scientific method by asking us questions instead of just making assumptions and insulting us.

BOOM shakalaka!!!
-
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab
http://www.skinnydevil.com

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk