Author Topic: My merge with Raw Paleo  (Read 39190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
My merge with Raw Paleo
« on: September 28, 2009, 08:51:36 am »
I don't follow a paleo style diet. I've been doing this for about 3 months. Each month I phase out a different part of my diet until I can reach relatively close to a paleo style. ex, end of this month I'm cutting out dairy. My diet right now go as follow

Breakfast-2whole eggs,raw milk or yogurt,1 scoop of whey protein & sometimes banana or honey(depending on my craving)
brunch/lunch-1lb of raw meat(2x 8oz servings)
handful of spinach(just nibble on a few here & there which adds up to about a handful a day)
Snack-some dried berries w almonds
Dinner- 1/2lb of cooked meat(at work don't feel like  explaining myself to co-workers yet. So I'll eat cooked food)


So far I noticed a few changes. My teeth are more grounded. Existing cavity is virtually pain free. Even when I drink hot or ice cold fluids. Whiter & a slicker enamel. I've also noted a stronger scent in body oder when I wake up.Kind of smells like watered down tomato sauce. I'm guessing it as to do with my body's PH balance.

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2009, 09:32:50 pm »
Yesterdays meal:

I woke up with a headache & runny nose on one nostril & other nostril stuffed. I believe it's cause of the sudden temperature change in my area. Slept with all the windows open & thin covers that night.

Breakfast: 3 raw eggs,1 oz frozen liver,1tbs organic yogurt, 2tbs raw honey
Snack: 1 small apple
Lunch: 1Lb raw coho salmon, w/dumpling sauce for taste(seemed like a big meal but I was still very hungry afterwards. Next time I'll eat more.)
Snack 2: about 3 ounces of mix nut (I know nuts are heavy on the stomach, but I was still hungry. Like nothing can satisfy my hunger for some reason)
Diner: 1/3lb cooked turkey, 1/4 avocado
Snack3: 14fl oz oj. Was feeling congested all day. Worst was at night. I couldn't breath from my nose at all. So I sipped on the OJ(I hate buying juice) cause I thought the vitamin c would help.
Snack 4: small tea, to help with congestion & co worker handed me a small slice of brownie(I refused 3x but he said his wife made it for his sons birthday. So I ate a slice out of guilt)

Offline cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,513
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2009, 11:03:27 am »
I would ease up on the nuts, and completely cut out dried fruit.

William

  • Guest
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2009, 11:42:21 am »
You are still eating enough carbohydrates to make congestion. Zero carb is what worked for this for me.
For an overnight fix of congestion, a glass or two of water worked.

You are hungry after a meal because your body does not believe that veggie fat is fat. Mine is the same, we have lots of company.

OJ is one of the common poisons. Mine was lemonaid, and I still miss it.

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2009, 11:39:13 pm »
I didn't plan on eating the whole bag of mixed nuts. I didn't have that full feeling. So my body just told me to keep eating it. I hate buying juice, but I was at work & didn't bring any fruit with me so the nearest thing I can think of was OJ.

How do carbs make you congested? Did you find a study or was it from your experience? I'm not trying to be a hard ass about it. I don't like when people post advice from some guy who heard it through the grape vine. I'm not a complete newbie to foods. I understand how certain foods affect us. I would just like more detail on replies. Other than don't do this, don't do that.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 11:45:14 pm by DeadRamones »

William

  • Guest
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2009, 07:20:41 am »
It was my own experience; I would not have posted it unless others had also mentioned having the same experience.

You might get other answers here that you don't like.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 09:29:17 am by William »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2009, 08:16:22 am »
When I was eating carbs I would have at least one nostril partly or totally clogged nearly every day  (no-sugar-added dried fruits and nuts was one of my favored snacks--even when I cut out the dried fruits and ate only fresh fruits and nuts for carbs I still had some chronic congestion). When I went near-ZC this cleared up. Now my sinuses are completely clear unless I cheat or react to pollen or sudden very cold weather other environmental triggers (and the reactions to these are now much milder than they used to be). YMMV
>"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

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2009, 04:38:53 pm »
I used to have nasal congestion in a big way while still consuming dairy(however raw), though I never had a problem with other raw carbs like fruit/veg/honeycomb.
.So I would strongly suggest you cut out the raw dairy, the whey protein  and do a short elimination diet to see if  you react at all to raw eggs(a few do, I suspect, because of the massive amounts of grains fed to the birds).

You might also consider removing the nuts from your diet as they contain a lot of antinutrients. My advice:- if you want to keep eating nuts, limit the quantity you eat each day and make sure to soak any nuts you want to eat for a full 24 hours beforehand. Soaking in water will remove some of the antinutrients.
"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 DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2009, 08:20:23 pm »
William, I appreciate the answers posted. I do understand(especially from this site) that I will get allot of informal & irregular diet tips compared to what we've been taught from past experience. That's why I prefer if people posted from either their experience or from a study. So I know I'm getting a legit answer.

Tyler, I've read about nuts anti nutrients, does that apply to all nuts(almonds vs peanuts)? I'm also phasing out of my current style of eating(cutting:whey protein,dairy,5 meals a day). So within a month or so I should be headed towards a more paleo style of eating.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2009, 05:27:52 am »


Tyler, I've read about nuts anti nutrients, does that apply to all nuts(almonds vs peanuts)?

I'm afraid so.
"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 PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2009, 09:18:15 am »
Yeah, my own experience matches what Tyler said about dairy and nuts too. I know, bummer.

I managed to eliminate dairy early, despite it being one of the food categories I was most addicted to. When I tried to reintroduce pasteurized or raw dairy products the results were unpleasant. I've never tried unpasteurized ghee, but I have no desire to, since grassfed suet is more easily acquired and cheaper where I live and I have come to love suet melted at low temps, and I believe it likely that animal fats have superior health effects for me over dairy fats, based on my experience and research.

Tree nuts (mainly almonds and walnuts) were one of the last foods I gave up and I resisted it--in part because I liked them but mostly because so many sources said that tree nuts were healthy, including Cordain, Eaton and Audette. I did better after I eliminated the nuts and not long afterward I discovered that wild almonds are lethally toxic (I've read that as little as a handful can kill you) and almonds were not domesticated until the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) or possibly a bit earlier (www.l.org/entry/Almond). It makes sense, because the almond tree doesn't "want" the almonds to be eaten, since almonds are the seed of the plant that must survive and germinate if the tree is to reproduce. Plus, the geographic range of almonds was quite limited in Paleo times and is still rather limited today, despite some intentional spread. So it's surprising that Cordain, Eaton and Audette consider almonds a Paleo food. My guess is that they are not familiar with the full history of almonds. It doesn't make sense to me for us to eat foods that nature explicitly put toxic chemicals in to make sure we would NOT eat them.

The most toxic antinutrient in almonds is cyanogenic glycoside amygdalin, a chemical which can became hydrogen cyanide (Prussic acid) if the nuts get crushed (such as from chewing). Amygdalin from peach and apricot pits is used in the production of the controversial alternative cancer treatment Laetrile (the toxic effect of the amygdalin in Laetrile is supposed to kill the cancer cells--remember, most medicines are toxic and tend to have side effects if taken for a sufficiently long period or in a sufficiently large dose). The amount of amygdalin (and other antinutrients) in domesticated almonds is far lower than in the lethal wild almonds, but there's still some in it. Many sources mistakenly report that there's no amygdalin at all in domesticated ("sweet") almonds, but this is simply not true (did this urban legend come from industry propaganda, I wonder?). Whole freeze dried sweet almonds without the skin average 1.2 mg of amydalin per gram dry weight of almonds ("Pharmaceutical compositions for alleviating excess levels of sugar in diabetic patients," http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0257508.html). Other plant foods reportedly containing small amounts of amygdalin include beansprouts, carrots, celery, green peppers, lettuce, and mushrooms, among others (Stephen N. Vogel, Thomas R. Sultan, and Raymond P. Ten Eyck, "Cyanide Poisoning," Clinical Toxicology, 1981, Vol. 18, No. 3 : Pages 367-383, http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563658108990043?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ctx and "Apricot: Herbal Medicines," www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/herbals/current/1000728187.htm--both sources require registration).

Again, as Tyler has mentioned elsewhere, small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects, but if eaten regularly as staple foods, one might consider emulating what all other primates do that eat plenty of antinutrient-containing foods: they regularly eat healing clays or other toxin-absorbing materials from time to time. Given the low doses of antinutrients in some of today's farmed foods, it may not take that much clay to do the trick, though I prefer to just avoid the antinutrient foods, at least for now. Also, I should note that some people appear to have higher tolerances for plant antinutrients and carbs than others. I appear to have very low tolerances, but others here have reported much higher tolerances, so your best guide is probably the signals from your own body.

I only recently learned this info about almonds, so if I erred anywhere, feel free to correct me.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 09:37:47 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

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2009, 10:05:59 pm »
PaleoPhil thanks for the info. That cleared up alot!

small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects  I read an article about how mushrooms are used as chemo alternatives in Asia. The study claims that the consumed mushroom(can't recall what specific type) stimulated the immune system cause your body thinks it's an invader & trys to fight it. Don't know how true it is but it seems to make sense, since it is fungus.

I'm trying to give up dairy completely. It's kind of tuff cause I love salty cheese & yogurt. On a side note, one of my coworkers was telling me that in Israel. Cheese was thought to be discovered by a traveling man who packed goat milk in a goat intestinal container bag & noted the spoiling of the milk as he traveled. which kind of made me think that if there was ever any cheese consumed in paleo times. It was probably when a decaying carrion of a baby bovid was scavenged. which I'm guessing would happen once if any, in a life time.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2009, 04:53:20 pm »
Dairy was nonexistent in Palaeo times. One has to bear in mind that the udders have hardly any actual  dairy in them, the teats have to be stimulated in order for dairy-producing hormones to get to work and make the stuff. So, only domestication could ensure anything more than tiny amounts.
"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 PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2009, 09:19:54 pm »
That's interesting stuff, Tyler, and something I never hear about from the pro-WAP crowd. Do you have a good source to refer me to for more info?
>"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

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2009, 02:57:14 pm »
Dairy was nonexistent in Palaeo times. One has to bear in mind that the udders have hardly any actual  dairy in them, the teats have to be stimulated in order for dairy-producing hormones to get to work and make the stuff. So, only domestication could ensure anything more than tiny amounts.

 Interesting. I always thought milk production & their hormones existed shortly after giving birth. If you do have any more info please post.

 I've read about how some paleo enthusiast believes that what ever foods was in an animals stomach were consumed. Also how a certain tribe of Eskimo's (post peleo)made soups & salads out of it. I'm fully aware that dairy products wasn't available in paleo times(except for mothers milk). I'm just making an assumption that if any cheese was to ever be consumed, that it would of probably came from decaying carrion of a baby bovid.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2009, 04:36:26 pm »
That's interesting stuff, Tyler, and something I never hear about from the pro-WAP crowd. Do you have a good source to refer me to for more info?

Heres' standard stuff re breast-stimulation releasing hormones thus providing milk for the infant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation

Another consideration is that cows were not genetically selected to have those huge udders during the Palaeolithic era. That came later due to doemstication.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 05:20:01 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 Cthulhu

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2009, 03:50:21 am »
Yeah, my own experience matches what Tyler said about dairy and nuts too. I know, bummer.

I managed to eliminate dairy early, despite it being one of the food categories I was most addicted to. When I tried to reintroduce pasteurized or raw dairy products the results were unpleasant. I've never tried unpasteurized ghee, but I have no desire to, since grassfed suet is more easily acquired and cheaper where I live and I have come to love suet melted at low temps, and I believe it likely that animal fats have superior health effects for me over dairy fats, based on my experience and research.

Tree nuts (mainly almonds and walnuts) were one of the last foods I gave up and I resisted it--in part because I liked them but mostly because so many sources said that tree nuts were healthy, including Cordain, Eaton and Audette. I did better after I eliminated the nuts and not long afterward I discovered that wild almonds are lethally toxic (I've read that as little as a handful can kill you) and almonds were not domesticated until the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) or possibly a bit earlier (www.l.org/entry/Almond). It makes sense, because the almond tree doesn't "want" the almonds to be eaten, since almonds are the seed of the plant that must survive and germinate if the tree is to reproduce. Plus, the geographic range of almonds was quite limited in Paleo times and is still rather limited today, despite some intentional spread. So it's surprising that Cordain, Eaton and Audette consider almonds a Paleo food. My guess is that they are not familiar with the full history of almonds. It doesn't make sense to me for us to eat foods that nature explicitly put toxic chemicals in to make sure we would NOT eat them.

The most toxic antinutrient in almonds is cyanogenic glycoside amygdalin, a chemical which can became hydrogen cyanide (Prussic acid) if the nuts get crushed (such as from chewing). Amygdalin from peach and apricot pits is used in the production of the controversial alternative cancer treatment Laetrile (the toxic effect of the amygdalin in Laetrile is supposed to kill the cancer cells--remember, most medicines are toxic and tend to have side effects if taken for a sufficiently long period or in a sufficiently large dose). The amount of amygdalin (and other antinutrients) in domesticated almonds is far lower than in the lethal wild almonds, but there's still some in it. Many sources mistakenly report that there's no amygdalin at all in domesticated ("sweet") almonds, but this is simply not true (did this urban legend come from industry propaganda, I wonder?). Whole freeze dried sweet almonds without the skin average 1.2 mg of amydalin per gram dry weight of almonds ("Pharmaceutical compositions for alleviating excess levels of sugar in diabetic patients," http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0257508.html). Other plant foods reportedly containing small amounts of amygdalin include beansprouts, carrots, celery, green peppers, lettuce, and mushrooms, among others (Stephen N. Vogel, Thomas R. Sultan, and Raymond P. Ten Eyck, "Cyanide Poisoning," Clinical Toxicology, 1981, Vol. 18, No. 3 : Pages 367-383, http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563658108990043?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ctx and "Apricot: Herbal Medicines," www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/herbals/current/1000728187.htm--both sources require registration).

Again, as Tyler has mentioned elsewhere, small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects, but if eaten regularly as staple foods, one might consider emulating what all other primates do that eat plenty of antinutrient-containing foods: they regularly eat healing clays or other toxin-absorbing materials from time to time. Given the low doses of antinutrients in some of today's farmed foods, it may not take that much clay to do the trick, though I prefer to just avoid the antinutrient foods, at least for now. Also, I should note that some people appear to have higher tolerances for plant antinutrients and carbs than others. I appear to have very low tolerances, but others here have reported much higher tolerances, so your best guide is probably the signals from your own body.

I only recently learned this info about almonds, so if I erred anywhere, feel free to correct me.



About amygdalin:

Just because a plant contains an anti-nutrient or natural toxin does not mean it will harm our bodies. Some natural toxins in plants are actually very healthy to the human body. Amygdalin is completely non-toxic. That one link is a joke, since it obviously lacks a basic understanding of biochemistry. I wish more people would try to understand biochemistry before making such unfounded claims. I consume amygdalin almost every other day for it's benefits of cancer prevention. When I eat certain fruits that have seeds that contain amygdalin, I just eat the seeds along with it. Yes, only certain bitter tasting seeds/nuts contain enough amygdalin, so only bitter almonds, apple seeds, apricot seeds, and a few other nuts/seeds are high in amygdalin. I have been consuming amygdalin for years and there are no negative side effects whatsoever.
Many people will say that amygdalin is 'toxic' and can harm you because it contains cyanide, but, once again, that is because they haven't done the research or don't understand basic biochemistry. Vitamin B-12 also contains a form of cyanide (cyanocobalamin). Why don't people drop dead from cyanide poisoning from consuming red meat? Well, it's simple, actually. Cyanide, in it's gaseous form, is very deadly. However, as far as food goes, it's completely different, due to the natural biochemical sequence of chemical compounds that depend on each other. So, just because amygdalin contains cyanide does not mean it is deadly. Cyanide, in certain natural forms, can actually be very healthy. Anyway, the whole amygdalin and cyanide issue is scientifically moot.

Each molecule of amygdalin contains one unit of cyanide, one unit of benzaldehyde and two units of glucose which are bonded together. This is why amygdalin is very bitter tasting. The only way this cyanide can become harmful is if it is "unlocked" outside of it's natural compound by an enzyme called beta-glucosidase. This enzyme can only be found in very small quantities all over our bodies, except at cancer tumor sites, where large amounts of this enzyme can be found. In other words, cyanide is only released when it comes in contact with a cancer s, due to the large quantities of beta-glucosidase that is present. This is VERY deadly to cancer cells because not only is the cyanide unit released, but so is the benzaldehyde unit. At this point, benzaldehyde acts synergistically with cyanide and becomes 100 times more deadly then either unit in it's isolated form. This ONLY happens when it comes in contact with cancer cells. What if cancer cells aren't present? Well, simple. ONLY a very small amount of amygdalin from food is hydrolyzed by your body or somatic cells. Your body has massive quantities of an enzyme called rhodanese. This enzyme will convert cyanide and benzaldehyde into beneficial by-products (the HCN converts into relatively non-toxic thiocyanate). This is why amygdalin is non-toxic.


My conclusion:

Almonds are not toxic whatsoever, as long as you soak them before you eat them. This just goes to show you that fruit and nuts can be healthy and can protect you against cancer. When people often talk about certain chemical compounds in food and how 'bad' they can be, they OFTEN forget that it's usually in it's NATURAL BIOCHEMICAL SEQUENCE where other chemicals/anti-nutrients cancel out those harmful effects, thus making the whole theory behind all anti-nutrients/plant toxins being harmful null and void. As I just showed, certain natural plant toxins protect our bodies from disease and are healthy. Some seeds and nuts have great health benefits BECAUSE of certain natural plant toxins that are good for our bodies. To say that nuts/seeds are harmful because of amygdalin would mean that red meat is harmful because of Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin). Obviously, this is an absurd statement and is not true whatsoever.


So, I say to those who often overlook this important fact, just because there is a certain anti-nutrient or toxin in a plant doesn't mean it is unhealthy. Try understanding it's biochemical nature first, before coming to rash conclusions and claiming it is harmful because, in MANY cases, it can be the direct opposite. In the meantime, I will continue to eat amygdalin from my fresh produce and certain nuts/seeds. Certain soaked nuts are fine in decent amounts, as long as you don't eat too many or make it the main source of your fat/caloric intake. Just make sure you eat a raw animal food-based diet and then you can fill the rest in with certain nuts/seeds, fresh fruits, and raw/wild honey (for those who aren't zero carb).

Cthulhu
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 05:51:32 am by Cthulhu »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2009, 06:59:33 am »
Thanks for the feedback, Cthulhu. This will help me see if this info is worthy enough to stand up to critical inquiry, as I haven't investigated almonds much. Someone who eats almonds and takes amygdalin supplements should be a perfect counterpoint. I hope you don't mind lots of questions while I puzzle this out. I'm rooting for sweet almonds being completely non-toxic to humans, BTW, even though they're not one of my favorite foods. The more completely nontoxic foods there are, the easier life will be for me and the rest of humanity.

Quote
"Just because a plant contains an anti-nutrient or natural toxin does not mean it will harm our bodies."
I agree. Plants, whether they be sweet or bitter almonds (Prunus dulcis) or even wheat berries will only produce noticeable harm if eaten in sufficient quantity given the sensitivity of the individual consuming them. Also, sweet almonds are much less toxic than wild (bitter) almonds. Based on what I've read so far, I don't recommend eating a bunch of wild almonds, but if you have sources that contadict that, please do share them. As I mentioned, I only just learned of this stuff myself and I'm hoping that the sources that claimed all traces of amygdalin are absent from sweet almonds are correct. Unfortunately, none of those sources had scientific references. The most scientific source I found reported that there IS amygdalin in almonds. There are likely other antinutrients as well, as most plant reproductive organs seem to contain multiple antinutrients.

Quote
"Some natural toxins in plants are actually very healthy to the human body."
Yes, as I mentioned, antinutrients can even be medicinal--in limited quantities, for limited times, depending on the person's sensitivity and the amount of any detoxicants consumed with them, and who knows what other variables.

Quote
"Amygdalin is completely non-toxic."
Here is another source I found:

"Oil of bitter almonds, which is used in cooking, contains enough cyanide to be lethal, and people have committed suicide by drinking it.

Two cases of accidental poisoning with cyanide reported in 1981 involved groups of children in Israel who ate apricot kernels, which are, apparently, 'sweet and tasy'. In the first, involving a group of thirteen children, three died about half an hour after eating the 'sweets'. In the other case, which involved eight children, one died and the others were ill within two hours of eating the kernels. Apricot and almond kernels contain a substance called amygdalin, a sugar-like molecule which has a cyanide group within it. The cyanide is released when the kernel is chewed because an enzyme in the kernel is released and becomes active when it is chewed in the presence of saliva. The enzyme breaks down the amygdalin to release the cyanide. The exact number of apricot kernels that need to be eaten before adverse effects appear depends on the individual and on the type of kernel. Fifty or more kernels will certainly have adverse effects, but as few as twelve bitter almond kernels have been reported to cause serious toxic effects in an individual.

The cassava plant has also been responsible for a number of poisoning cases and can be a major problem in parts of the world where the crop is part of the staple diet."

--John A. Timbrell, toxicologist, The poison paradox: chemicals as friends and foes, pp. 218-219

Quote
"Almonds are not toxic whatsoever, as long as you soak them before you eat them."
You almost convinced me about almonds until you reminded me that some people soak them. I get a bit suspicious if a food should be processed before it's eaten, and if sweet almonds are "not toxic whatsoever," what is the point of soaking them? If soaking is to get toxins out, how does one know that all the toxins are gone? Many people, including some scientists, claim that the toxin levels in domesticated grains, legumes, etc. are negligible after processing (soaking, cooking, etc.), but when Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg and others investigated, they found significant levels of toxins remain after processing and millions of people claim to react to these foods. Interestingly, tree nuts (including the fruit seeds called almonds) are one of the more commonly reported food allergies.
 
As I mentioned, all primates that eat diets heavy in antinutrient-rich plants (which basically means all the primates who aren't frugivores or faunivores) eat at least some clay or other detoxicant. I posted info in at least one other thread from a book that goes into this in some depth. I find the nonhuman primates more convincing than humans on such matters because they don't have allegiances to any dietary doctrines.

I remember reading scientific papers and articles by Dr. Cordain and others on how modern foods like grains and legumes are unhealthy because they contain plant lectins and other antinutrients (here's one: http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml) that humans have not had time to fully adapt to genetically (by developing enzymes, immune system tolerance, etc.). I later learned that antinutrients are in every wild plant and they have to be in order for the plants to survive because they are natural poisons/insecticides that protect the plants from predators. I learned that scientists theorize that the animals that regularly eat a certain plant will over many thousands of years develop a system adapted to digesting the plant, and they will theoretically be best adapted if the first members of their species were eating it at the time they made their last evolutionary change. Since humans hadn't adapted to many of the plants we now eat, they were selected and hybridized over generations to make them more edible and tasty by reducing their antinutrient levels (antinutrients tend to be bitter) and increasing their sugar or starch content. In other words, they were domesticated. The problem with this is, less antinutrients/insecticides means higher susceptibility to predation by insects, worms and other animals. So pesticides were developed, first natural ones and then synthetic ones made from petrochemicals.

So the question is, have humans had enough time to adapt to the antinutrients in almonds and/or have the antinutrient levels in raw almonds been reduced so low that they can be eaten fairly regularly without problems? So far what I've been finding is reminiscent of what I read about grains and legumes. Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that grains and legumes are healthy if soaked and sprouted or cooked, but their claims didn't pan out for me. My own experience found them to be toxic for me and tons of accumulating science suggests they are toxic for many people, possibly all.

My experience with almonds was that by eliminating them and all other nuts from my diet, my health improved a bit further. Even if soaking almonds eliminated all problems, if I have to do that I can't be bothered with them. Besides, I found raw nuts to be rather bland and I don't really miss them. They were very tasty with some dried dates or mangoes mixed in, but I'll bet even you would admit that adding dried fruit would not be optimally healthy. So I'm not convinced that I should add them back into my diet, but I'd still like to explore their toxicity or lack thereof, since friends and relatives do eat them and ask me questions about foods from time to time.

[note: edits made]
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 07:09:59 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

Offline Cthulhu

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2009, 11:14:27 am »
Quote
"I agree. Plants, whether they be sweet or bitter almonds (Prunus dulcis) or even wheat berries will only produce noticeable harm if eaten in sufficient quantity given the sensitivity of the individual consuming them. Also, sweet almonds are much less toxic than wild (bitter) almonds. Based on what I've read so far, I don't recommend eating a bunch of wild almonds, but if you have sources that contadict that, please do share them. As I mentioned, I only just learned of this stuff myself and I'm hoping that the sources that claimed all traces of amygdalin are absent from sweet almonds are correct. Unfortunately, none of those sources had scientific references. The most scientific source I found reported that there IS amygdalin in almonds. There are likely other antinutrients as well, as most plant reproductive organs seem to contain multiple antinutrients. Yes, as I mentioned, antinutrients can even be medicinal--in limited quantities, for limited times, depending on the person's sensitivity and the amount of any detoxicants consumed with them, and who knows what other variables."


Again, not all anti-nutrients in their natural form are harmful because many plants have other chemical compounds that deactivate these anti-nutrients within it's natural biochemical sequence, as I have already showed with the biochemical activity of the amygdalin molecule. So, it's not a question of whether a certain nut/seed has amygdalin or not. The simple fact is, amygdalin is not toxic to the human body, therefore it does not matter. In general, most bitter nuts/seeds have the highest concentration of amygdalin, whereas the less bitter fruits and nuts/seeds usually have a much lower concentration of the molecule. Sweet almonds probably contain a very small amount of amygdalin, but not enough. Obviously, you can eat too much fruit, but that really means nothing, since we all know that too much of anything can be harmful, including animal products (ever ate too much fat back?). For example, I do very well on raw honey and fruit because I am very active. Without it, I would ruin my health and fitness goals. Some people may be more carb-sensitive from decades of eating highly refined, unnatural carbs and probably do better on a high fat diet. That's fine and if that works, then they should keep at it. But I am not concerned about the healthy sugar in fruits and honey (yes, it is healthy, at least for me, due to my highly active lifestyle, not to mention the fact that they still contain very healthy nutrients) or the "anti-nutrients" because, from my background in science, I know that most of it is not a big deal, nor does it negatively affect my health, therefore I will keep eating it and setting new fitness goals.

Quote
Here is another source I found: nevertheless, I currently have a hard time believing it because
"Oil of bitter almonds, which is used in cooking, contains enough cyanide to be lethal, and people have committed suicide by drinking it.

First of all, that statement can't be true because if it contained a 'concentrated source' of cyanide then it would be illegal. Also, this just goes to show you how poor the authors biochemistry is if he calls it "concentrated" because, once again, the cyanide can only become harmful or "concentrated/isolated" when unlocked outside of the amygdalin molecule or broken down via beta-glucosidase/rhodanese (enzymatic activity). In other words, you can think of the amygdalin molecule being a bird cage with a bird in it. In order for that bird to get out of the cage, you need a key. Without the key, the bird will NOT get out. Beta-glucosidase/rhodanese is the key. The bird is cyanide. I cannot find the source that you cited. Please give me a link. I also forgot to mention that, from what you have given me, the author does not list any names or actual records. So far, not factual.


Quote
"Two cases of accidental poisoning with cyanide reported in 1981 involved groups of children in Israel who ate apricot kernels, which are, apparently, 'sweet and tasy'. In the first, involving a group of thirteen children, three died about half an hour after eating the 'sweets'. In the other case, which involved eight children, one died and the others were ill within two hours of eating the kernels."

A major problem here. Apricot kernels are NOT 'sweet and tasty'. They are VERY bitter. I eat them on a regular basis. In fact, most kids will not eat them in their natural state because of how bitter they are. This is because amygdalin is bitter, NOT sweet. If this is true, then this is really good evidence that shows you they were poisoned by something else. Nevertheless, I am currently having a hard time believing this because no kid will run around calling apricot kernels  "sweet and tasty" after consuming them.  


Quote
Apricot and almond kernels contain a substance called amygdalin, a sugar-like molecule which has a cyanide group within it. The cyanide is released when the kernel is chewed because an enzyme in the kernel is released and becomes active when it is chewed in the presence of saliva. The enzyme breaks down the amygdalin to release the cyanide. The exact number of apricot kernels that need to be eaten before adverse effects appear depends on the individual and on the type of kernel. Fifty or more kernels will certainly have adverse effects, but as few as twelve bitter almond kernels have been reported to cause serious toxic effects in an individual." --John A. Timbrell, toxicologist, The poison paradox: chemicals as friends and foes, pp. 218-219"


Another major problem here. Once again, only a small amount of amygdalin is hydrolyzed by the body or somatic cells. When this molecule is broken down, cyanide is not just "released" and you die. It does not work out that way. As soon as the very small amount of amygdalin is hydrolized by the body or somatic cells, the rhodanese enzyme, which is found in abundance within the human body, quickly converts the HCN to thiocyanate, which is relatively non-toxic. The author got all his biochemistry wrong on this one too. And once again, no sources were established. No records, no names, nothing. I need a link showing records of these events. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this sounds a lot like anti-amygdalin, big pharma propaganda (like the kind that went on in the early 70's when they tried to get it banned). Many different tribes still consume plenty amygdalin and they're not all dying off. In fact, the Hunza diet is pretty high in amygdalin.



Quote
"You almost convinced me about almonds until you reminded me that some people soak them. I get a bit suspicious if a food should be processed before it's eaten, and if sweet almonds are "not toxic whatsoever," what is the point of soaking them? If soaking is to get toxins out, how does one know that all the toxins are gone?"

Almonds, like most nuts, become more digestible when soaked (enzyme inhibitors are released), although some higher fat nuts, like macadamia nuts, don't really need to be soaked.

Quote
"Many people, including some scientists, claim that the toxin levels in domesticated grains, legumes, etc. are negligible after processing (soaking, cooking, etc.), but when Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg and others investigated, they found significant levels of toxins remain after processing and millions of people claim to react to these foods. Interestingly, tree nuts (including the fruit seeds called almonds) are one of the more commonly reported food allergies."

I don't eat grains, so that does not apply to this post. Actually, the most commonly reported plant food allergies stem from certain plant foods in their cooked form, just like how most dairy allergies stem from pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (no matter what your position is on raw dairy, that's a simple fact).
 
Quote
"As I mentioned, all primates that eat diets heavy in antinutrient-rich plants (which basically means all the primates who aren't frugivores or faunivores) eat at least some clay or other detoxicant."

Yes, but 1. they do not consume clay on a regular basis and 2. you also forget the fact that fruit contains plenty of fiber, which pull toxins out of your body.

Quote
"I posted info in at least one other thread from a book that goes into this in some depth. I find the nonhuman primates more convincing than humans on such matters because they don't have allegiances to any dietary doctrines."


I agree. Humans can be rather dogmatic and ignorant in their approach. I have experimented with many different macronutrient ratios (low/zero carb, higher carb, etc.) and I just found what works best for me and my athletic goals. Like I said before, if someone finds a way of eating that works best for them, then that's great - after all, not everyone has the same nutritional needs. So, if you want to make the whole arguement about antinutrients or amygdalin being harmful, although I have debunked the unfounded claims, then you also have to say that red meat is unhealthy because Vitamin B-12 contains cyanide.



Quote
"The problem with this is, less antinutrients/insecticides means higher susceptibility to predation by insects, worms and other animals. So pesticides were developed, first natural ones and then synthetic ones made from petrochemicals."


No, not exactly. Less MINERALS/natural plant toxins usually means more pesticides, etc. Plants that grow in minerally depleted soil need more pesticides, etc.

Quote
"So the question is, have humans had enough time to adapt to the antinutrients in almonds and/or have the antinutrient levels in raw almonds been reduced so low that they can be eaten fairly regularly without problems? So far what I've been finding is reminiscent of what I read about grains and legumes. Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that grains and legumes are healthy if soaked and sprouted or cooked, but their claims didn't pan out for me. My own experience found them to be toxic for me and tons of accumulating science suggests they are toxic for many people, possibly all."

Once again, it's not that plants contain some antinutrients/natural toxins, but it's how those antinutrients/plant toxins digest and affect our bodies. That's why I talked about amygdalin. Yes, it has cyanide, but how does this molecule digest in our bodies? Pretty well. After all, I consume amygdalin on a regular basis and I am not dead. The fact is, once again, if you want to make an arguement for amygdalin being harmful/deadly, then you would have to say that Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) is harmful because, after all, Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) contains cyanide too. Why aren't we dead? Because our bodies are well adapted to handle Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) like it is amygdalin, not to mention the fact that it is not in it's concentrated form. Plant toxins/anti-nutriets, once absorbed by our bodies, can become BENEFICIAL toxins/chemical compounds because they are MODIFIED through the biochemical actions of enzymatic activity, etc., therefore they are no longer the same molecule that they once were before they entered the body. So, yes, there can be a natural plant toxin that is used to protect the plant, but once it enters our body it might be broken down into beneficial chemical compounds, etc. The fact is, ALL FOODS, both plant and animal, contain toxins and bacteria. Plants contain natural toxins that can be beneficial to our health, including cyanide. Animal meat/fat too contains natural bacteria and toxins that can be beneficial to our health, INCLUDING cyanide (vitamin B-12).

Quote
"My experience with almonds was that by eliminating them and all other nuts from my diet, my health improved a bit further. Even if soaking almonds eliminated all problems, if I have to do that I can't be bothered with them. Besides, I found raw nuts to be rather bland and I don't really miss them. They were very tasty with some dried dates or mangoes mixed in, but I'll bet even you would admit that adding dried fruit would not be optimally healthy. So I'm not convinced that I should add them back into my diet, but I'd still like to explore their toxicity or lack thereof, since friends and relatives do eat them and ask me questions about foods from time to time."


And that's great. If you experience good health by doing so, then keep on doing it, but I have experienced better health since I added in some raw plant fats and fruits/raw honey because my body REQUIRES it for my level of fitness. I need an insulin spike after I finish working out to promote protein synthesis and pull my body out of catabolism. I have done zero carb long enough to 'adapt' to it (for about a year when I properly calculate it) and my health WAS declining, along with my fitness goals. I am a big believer in raw animal food and that is the foundation of my diet, but my body requires fruit and honey in order to function. Nuts are not essential, but every now and then I will take a handful and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as dried fruit goes, well, it depends on what kind of dried fruit you're eating. I consume goji berries almost daily (it is one of my main sources of plant antioxidants), which are sun dried and they don't spike my blood sugar violently. In fact, many people find that they actually help balance blood sugar levels, as I too have found. Other than that, the only dried fruit I consume is right before or after powerlifting. Dried fruit won't harm me because, like I said above, I NEED to spike my insulin levels after exercising in order to hault catabolism. A heavy, high fat, no/very low carb meal will NOT immediately pull your body out of a catabolic state by spiking insulin levels, driving glucose and amino acids into muscle cells (this can happen because 1. insulin sensitivity is increased after heavy exercises and 2. glycogen stores are depleted, so nutrients will go to muscle cells rather than fat cells). The fact is, for very active athletes like me, sugar from fruit and honey IS needed. I would have to question some of the raw paleo dieters who believe all sugar is evil, if they are truly active, like our raw paleo ancestors were, because it is hard as hell to lift huge rocks and logs and hike/run up mountains on a zero carb diet. I am saying this from first hand experience. Anyway, I don't want to come across as some hard-head who is bashing other peoples diets. I am just raising some interesting questions.

Cthulhu

« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 02:46:56 pm by Cthulhu »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2009, 05:40:53 pm »
I don't eat grains, so that does not apply to this post. Actually, the most commonly reported plant food allergies stem from certain plant foods in their cooked form, just like how most dairy allergies stem from pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (no matter what your position is on raw dairy, that's a simple fact).

I agree about the issue of pasteurised dairy being more allergenic than raw dairy. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence in RVAF diet groups showing that people have varying sensitivities to dairy with almost everyone suffering to some extent from pasteurised dairy, but others seemingly doing fine on the raw(grassfed) version. I've read that AGEs(advanced glycation end products), found in all cooked foods, are 200 times more "immunoreactive" suggesting a  possible higher tendency to cause allergies.
 
Quote
And that's great. If you experience good health by doing so, then keep on doing it, but I have experienced better health since I added in some raw plant fats and fruits/raw honey because my body REQUIRES it for my level of fitness. I need an insulin spike after I finish working out to promote protein synthesis and pull my body out of catabolism. I have done zero carb long enough to 'adapt' to it (for about a year when I properly calculate it) and my health WAS declining, along with my fitness goals. I am a big believer in raw animal food and that is the foundation of my diet, but my body requires fruit and honey in order to function. Nuts are not essential, but every now and then I will take a handful and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as dried fruit goes, well, it depends on what kind of dried fruit you're eating. I consume goji berries almost daily (it is one of my main sources of plant antioxidants), which are sun dried and they don't spike my blood sugar violently. In fact, many people find that they actually help balance blood sugar levels, as I too have found. Other than that, the only dried fruit I consume is right before or after powerlifting. Dried fruit won't harm me because, like I said above, I NEED to spike my insulin levels after exercising in order to hault catabolism. A heavy, high fat, no/very low carb meal will NOT immediately pull your body out of a catabolic state by spiking insulin levels, driving glucose and amino acids into muscle cells (this can happen because 1. insulin sensitivity is increased after heavy exercises and 2. glycogen stores are depleted, so nutrients will go to muscle cells rather than fat cells). The fact is, for very active athletes like me, sugar from fruit and honey IS needed. I would have to question some of the raw paleo dieters who believe all sugar is evil, if they are truly active, like our raw paleo ancestors were, because it is hard as hell to lift huge rocks and logs and hike/run up mountains on a zero carb diet. I am saying this from first hand experience. Anyway, I don't want to come across as some hard-head who is bashing other peoples diets. I am just raising some interesting questions.

Cthulhu

Yes, that's the big hurdle re zero-carb diets. I found I simply couldn't do any serious exercise on zero-carb and things just worsened in that regard as time went on during my past ZC trials.
"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.

William

  • Guest
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2009, 08:40:59 pm »
Almonds are moot, as recently in the U.S.A. they were added to the list of things not permitted to be sold raw.

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2009, 02:01:58 am »
Yea that's true. Each state has different laws requiring a certain degree to pasteurize nuts. From what I understand nuts are shelled in boiling water & Pasteurized through hot steam.

Offline Cthulhu

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2009, 02:26:12 am »
Almonds are moot, as recently in the U.S.A. they were added to the list of things not permitted to be sold raw.

Not true. You cannot buy raw almonds from a company that bags/processes them, but, thanks to a legal loophole, you can buy raw almonds directly from a farm or imported raw almonds. When I do eat nuts, I am able to buy imported raw Hunza nuts (organic). I mostly just buy raw macadamia nuts because they have a high saturated fat content and I do better on them than other nuts that are higher in protein and lower in fat.

Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,769
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2009, 03:17:24 am »
You can get raw almonds from Jaffe bros. and nuts online.   I think Macs have a higher percentage of mufas.

Offline DeadRamones

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
  • My boy eating!
    • View Profile
    • Acumen Athletics
Re: My merge with Raw Paleo
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2009, 03:43:47 am »
Hey Cthulhu, I liked your post. I workout 5x a week about 2+ hours each(bjj & thai) workout & I do 3 days of lifting (5-3-1 method). If I don't eat a banana in between workouts or after. My muscles cramp up. I carb cycle as well. Glad to know I'm not the only one in this forum who's down with the PWO insulin spike lol.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk