Author Topic: Coconut oil and antinutrients  (Read 62048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,513
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #75 on: January 12, 2010, 09:33:39 am »

Yes, I know about Delfuego, and in my past communications with him he seems to have been far more concerned with maintaining the image he has created on ZIOH than being fully forthcoming about what he is actually doing. Even on the ZIOH forum he's been asked repeatedly for specifics, but provides little in the way of detailed information.  Long ago I gave up trusting the self proclaimed gurus without verification.


It sounds like Del Fuego is the ZC version of the raw vegan gurus.  Neither raw, nor vegan, just pretending. It's a good thing that there are hobbyists like many of us, who are actually telling the truth about what we're eating, and what it's doing to us...people with fact/truth as our #1 agenda, not dogma or money/followers.

William

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2010, 09:34:26 am »


I completely agree with Phil, that you should have given the board full disclosure about pemmican vs raw meat.

Because I can't - never ate fat raw meat zero carb long enough to make a fair comparison, for the reason that sometimes I got a stop from it, sometimes diarrhea. We've been over this before, should be in the archives if you look.
BTW I usually eat raw egg yolk(s) with the pemmican, and sometime even a piece of store meat, browned. How's that for full disclosure.




Quote
Why did you withhold the very valuable information that pemmican is indeed not superior to raw beef?

Eh?


Quote
 Why then do you eat pemmican?


See the first answer.


Quote
Is cost really that big of an issue?

Yes.



Quote
It is your health. It seems you haven’t given raw grass-fed beef a fair try and that you had a mislead agenda with pemmican by covering up some of the story.

See answer 1 again. It is best to read the archive before accusing someone of deception

Quote
I also don’t see how you can conclude that evolution, Paleolithic eating of vegetation, big bang theory, etc.. don’t exist, even though there is a preponderance of evidence for all of these things and then say that paleo man ate pemmican on exactly no evidence whatsoever. You may actually be the sole person who believes paleo man ate pemmican. Your reasoning is that pemmican is simple to make is enough for you??? I don’t understand how you evaluate evidence.

I will say again though that pemmican actualy might be superior for those withallergies to rw meat s Dr.Harris has pointed out.

Your standard of evidence differs from that of the scientists I read.
Conclusion, evidence, belief, reason, logic and understanding are all different things, and it seems that you have confused some of them. You seem to be reading something into my words that I did not write.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2010, 09:47:17 am »
...   I also have had extensive communications with about a dozen people from various forums that thought pemmican would be the Holy Grail, but most developed problems as the months progressed when it was the only food eaten.  The ones that had the most success were the ones that added between 5% and 10% by weight of dried berries (strawberries, blueberries, cranberries, etc) to their mix.
....
That's interesting. I have noticed that many of the observational reports of early-contact Native Americans reported them adding berries to their pemmican, despite what William has said about that. Do you have any hypotheses as to why this helped those people?
>"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

William

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2010, 10:01:05 am »
That's interesting. I have noticed that many of the observational reports of early-contact Native Americans reported them adding berries to their pemmican, despite what William has said about that. Do you have any hypotheses as to why this helped those people?


Easy, Phil.
Wasn't me who said that, it was IIRC part of historical piece, written by a historian, saying that the Indians made their pemmican plain, but mixed dried berries with that made for white men, because they believed that white men could not live on plain pemmican.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2010, 10:15:09 am »
That's interesting. I have noticed that many of the observational reports of early-contact Native Americans reported them adding berries to their pemmican, despite what William has said about that. Do you have any hypotheses as to why this helped those people?

Not a clue, but I can make something up. It seems pretty clear that something is missing from pemmican made from muscle meat and fat only, and the berries are filling in at least part of what is missing.  

People that try a ZC diet with no organ meats tend to experience long term problems as well, so this is probably a good place to start.  I suppose it is possible to include organ meats in pemmican but the experiments that I've done in this area show that it is difficult to get a wide variety and the keeping qualities of the pemmican suffers.  

Lex

William

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #80 on: January 12, 2010, 10:26:14 am »
Let's assume that's true. That's the result, but what causes there to be a different result?

Filtering.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #81 on: January 12, 2010, 10:52:21 am »

The result of cooking is a food containing toxins.
The result of rendering is tallow,containing no toxins.
Let's assume that's true. That's the result, but what causes there to be a different result?
Filtering.

I'd be fascinated to know what type of filter you are using to filter out molecular sized particles. I want one! Nothing I have in my kitchen will do it.

Lex

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #82 on: January 12, 2010, 11:39:01 am »
Yes, William, that's what I was referring to. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I happen to disagree with your interpretation, but it's not a major issue for me anyway, since I eat raw organs and eggs.

Lex, you're still eating your pet food organ mix, right?

I'd be fascinated to know what type of filter you are using to filter out molecular sized particles. I want one! Nothing I have in my kitchen will do it.
Heh, heh. Both you guys are good with the jokes. Lex, you've probably been told things like this before, but if you work out the kidney stone issue and your health is still in excellent shape you should write a book about your experiences and be sure to include your humor in it. Even if it's just for family and friends to read.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 11:45:05 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 lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #83 on: January 12, 2010, 12:24:52 pm »
Lex, you're still eating your pet food organ mix, right?

Yup, I think it's the secret to my success, but please don't tell anyone as then it would no longer be a secret!

Lex

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #84 on: January 12, 2010, 07:10:11 pm »
This is inaccurate, of course. First off, the fact that the body produces its own enzymes is irrelevant as we all know full well that people on SAD diets commonly end up with digestive issues as they get older, routinely requiring enzyme supplements as they age. If their bodies always provided enough enzymes, they wouldn't require enzyme supplements.

This is irrelevant. The enzymes in supplements are not the same as those found in raw food.

 

Secondly, the claims re saturated fat are rather bogus. For example, as I pointed out on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group, the foods highest in cooked saturated fats are often the foods highest in heat-created toxins(butter being a perfect example thereof, being very high in saturated fat):-

http://www.newcastleyoga.com.au/links/Food%20AGEs%20text.pdf


Here again your argument is quite irrelevant. Cooked fats contain indeed a lot of heat generated toxins because the fat whether saturated or not reacts with other food components such as protein and sugars always present in cooked meats or dishes. And the whole toxic mix is then eaten as it is.

Butter is thus the perfect exemple of nothing relevant in this respect. If pasteurized, as it is most likely in the well known work you refer to, the toxins are formed by reaction with the residual milk sugar and protein always present in butter.

Rendering is heating for sure but it is not akin to cooking because it is also phase separation (as done in a chemistry lab to get pure chemicals) where one chooses to keep only the low temperature melting fatty acids and discards precisely the remaining solid stuff as the reacted proteins and fats and carbs that do not melt at such temperatures and necessarily contain the bulk of the heat generated toxins. In this respect William is right when he claims that his tallow is purified fat.

Nature is subtle and if we want to progress and not to be fooled by oversimplified views and dogma we must adopt a rational attitude and careful scientific reasoning.

I would certainly not adopt pemmican as the basis of my diet but it is a priori a very interesting second class food under certain circumstances not to be confused with cooked meat.

If our sailor ancestors of the five past centuries had embarked pemmican (with some berries) rather than salted pork and biscuit it is very likely that their terrible suffering from scurvy and others diseases during their long voyages wouldn't have existed.

      

 

« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 07:36:31 pm by alphagruis »

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #85 on: January 12, 2010, 07:20:59 pm »
I may as well jump into the fray - at least the pemmican part.

There is no one that I know of that is doing well on a pemmican-only diet over the long term, especially if the pemmican is composed of just meat and fat.  Throughout history there have been many people and groups that have used pemmican as the majority of their diet for several months at a time, but none that I know of that don't add, or revert to fresh foods when available.   I also have had extensive communications with about a dozen people from various forums that thought pemmican would be the Holy Grail, but most developed problems as the months progressed when it was the only food eaten.  The ones that had the most success were the ones that added between 5% and 10% by weight of dried berries (strawberries, blueberries, cranberries, etc) to their mix.

Yes, I know about Delfuego, and in my past communications with him he seems to have been far more concerned with maintaining the image he has created on ZIOH than being fully forthcoming about what he is actually doing. Even on the ZIOH forum he's been asked repeatedly for specifics, but provides little in the way of detailed information.  Long ago I gave up trusting the self proclaimed gurus without verification.

People are free to argue over whether pemmican is a true paleo food or not.  I have no axe to grind either way.  I've found pemmican useful as a supplement to my normal diet, especially when traveling and as an emergency food.  This seems to be in line with how it has been used throughout history.  I've seen no evidence that pemmican has ever been used by the North American Natives that invented it, as the only food eaten.

Lex  

Lex, been as you don't go into detail it would be only correct that Delfuego could give his "doing" or "not doing" himself - assumtions can be very missleading. Your words are "harmfull" to those who are not eating your mix...and after all a few months back you said the following:

I received a note from another raw meat eater on another forum stating that when he eats a food mix of Slanker Dog and Cat food, Ground beef, and fat, he soon experiences a very loose and smelly bowel movement.

Unfortunatley I've noticed the exact same thing since Slankers changed processing plants.  They used to use Kilgor and now they use Four Star.  I've spent the last few weeks tracing down the problem and find that is is caused by the Dog and Cat food.  If I leave the D & C out and just eat the regular meat everything is fine.  If I add even a small amount of D&C to the mix (4 oz D&C to 2 lbs Chili meat) the problem reoccurs.

It appears that the D&C is now contaminated in some way - probably with an unfriendly bacteria.

Since the D&C is not USDA inspected and approved for human consumption there is little that I can do.  Slankers has made it clear that their pet food is not for human consumption and if I chose to eat it, that is my problem.

What I have found out is that Four Star is a much larger processor than Kilgor and so they may have separate facilities and equipment for the non-inspected products.  This means they wouldn't have to follow USDA health standards in that part of the plant as the equipment is never used for products that require inspection.  Just speculation but certainly a possibility.

It looks like I'll be eating just the regular ground meat and fat products as the loose bowl problem is very annoying.  This will also give me the opportunity to see just how important organ meats are to health.  I’ve been eating the D&C just to make sure I get a good variety of organ meats.  However, other long term zero carb raw meat eaters have eaten only muscle meats and experienced no problems whatsoever.  I’ll be leaving the organ meats out of my diet for the next 6 months to 1 year and we’ll see how I feel and how my lab results change.

Lex


I had about 4 days of food mix (the one with the 4oz D&C per pound of regular ground meat), so I decided to finish this off rather than waste it.  For the last two days I haven't experienced the loose bowel problem at all.  Not sure what's going on now.  The mix is from the same batch of D&C that was causing the issue before so I have no idea why the problem should go away unless it is a stronger immune system response or something.  We'll see.   I think I'll continue with the lighter mix of D&C and monitor what happens.

As I've written before, I'm no longer convinced that organ meats are critical to maintianing health, but have continued with my mix of pet food and regular ground meat as 'insurance'.  I'll plod along with a lighter mix of D&C and if all goes well, I'll ramp back up to the heavier mixture and see what happens.  Will report what I find in my journal along the way.

Lex


So let Delfuego speek for himself and you try only muscle meat and fat and we will all be  :o

Nicola

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #86 on: January 12, 2010, 07:59:07 pm »
I'd be fascinated to know what type of filter you are using to filter out molecular sized particles. I want one! Nothing I have in my kitchen will do it.

Lex

As I said in my previous post the bulk of the toxins such as AGEs or ALEs or racemized proteins must be attached to the solid material that is discarded in rendering. This is just phase separation by melting. Of course some fat soluble degradation products such as damaged vitamins or some low molecular weight glycotoxins go with the rendered fat (and cannot of course be "filtered") but this is a priori a much smaller quantity than in the whole mix with the solid parts.   

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #87 on: January 12, 2010, 09:31:58 pm »

Stirring the pot Nicola!

I was pro muscle meats for a while there but have changed my mind, the energy and clarity raw liver gives me just can't be replaced by muscle meats.

I felt unstoppable/powerful on raw liver and ever so slowly lost that feeling during my muscle meat phase. It didn't happen immediately so I thought I was fine but now I know. A friend mentioned the same thing to me recently and now were both back on it.
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,433
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #88 on: January 12, 2010, 10:10:36 pm »
This is irrelevant. The enzymes in supplements are not the same as those found in raw food.

On the contrary, YOUR statement is irrelevant. I was pointing out that older people frequently need to take artificial  enzyme supplements precisely because they've been eating cooked foods totally lacking in natural enzymes , just like pemmican for decades, thus aging their bodies and making their own production of natural enzymes decline drastically via damage to organs/glands.

Quote
Here again your argument is quite irrelevant. Cooked fats contain indeed a lot of heat generated toxins because the fat whether saturated or not reacts with other food components such as protein and sugars always present in cooked meats or dishes. And the whole toxic mix is then eaten as it is.
  If you're suggesting that the fat is completely unaffected by itself, then that's just foolish. Every single substance in Nature is ultimately affected by heat. And one only has to look at what pemmican looks like to see that it is quite different in texture etc. to standard raw meat/fat,so that it's obvious that substantial changes have occurred to it.

This is largely irrelevant. We are all perfectly well aware that there are various processes by which we can limit the amounts of heat-created toxins in cooked foods(for example boiling in water, so as to minimise AGE-creation and retaining water-soluble vitamins leached into the water). That, however, does not make boiled food healthy by any stretch of the imagination, it merely is a 2nd-rate compromise designed to limit damage to one's body, nothing more.




Quote
I would certainly not adopt pemmican as the basis of my diet but it is a priori a very interesting second class food under certain circumstances not to be confused with cooked meat.
  I have no problem with pemmican being designated as a 2nd-rate food that can be used instead of, say, being forced to eat junk food, when travelling abroad for weeks. but it by no means can be compared to raw meats on any level.

Quote
If our sailor ancestors of the five past centuries had embarked pemmican (with some berries) rather than salted pork and biscuit it is very likely that their terrible suffering from scurvy and others diseases during their long voyages wouldn't have existed
However, they ultimately had the sense to go in for a more useful approach which was to use limes/oranges etc., instead.

Incidentally, according to the wikipedia entry for the history of scurvy, pemmican/animal fat might have not been a good idea:-

"The most effective regime implemented by Cook was his prohibition against the consumption of fat scrubbed from the ship's copper pans, then a common practice in the Navy. In contact with the hot copper, this fat acquired substances which possibly irritated the gut and prevented proper absorption of vitamins. " and it's also mentioned that it was highly refined carbohydrates that speeded up the loss of vitamin C from the body(such as those ghastly navy biscuits sailors used to eat).

       

 


[/quote]

William

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #89 on: January 12, 2010, 11:17:53 pm »
There have been plenty of posts which generously attempted to shine the mighty light of Truth in the mind of TD - all of them futile.

Reason, logic, the best of science all failed.

So what remains is damage control.

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #90 on: January 12, 2010, 11:22:57 pm »
I was pointing out that older people frequently need to take artificial  enzyme supplements precisely because they've been eating cooked foods totally lacking in natural enzymes , just like pemmican for decades, thus aging their bodies and making their own production of natural enzymes decline drastically via damage to organs/glands.

Yes sure I noticed. And your point ist just ridiculous babble of worst type namely of the ones who are "not even wrong" in Pauli's sense. So I didn't comment for charity's sake. Impossible to falsify and thus useless. The scientific work (as opposed to outsiders unsupported babble) that demonstrates that it is the destruction of enzymes in cooked food once more quite different from our own digestive enzymes and made inactive anyway in stomacal acid environment that is responsible of digestive problems in older SAD people simply does not and cannot even exist. Period.

 

  If you're suggesting that the fat is completely unaffected by itself, then that's just foolish. Every single substance in Nature is ultimately affected by heat. And one only has to look at what pemmican looks like to see that it is quite different in texture etc. to standard raw meat/fat,so that it's obvious that substantial changes have occurred to it.


I do not suggest but claim that rendered beef fat at 94°C is essentially (not completely please do not distort my phrasing) unaffected by heat. Again nothing to do with fat and muscle cooked in mix and the whole stuff eventually eaten.

And whether you like it or not something may have been modified by heat and nervertheless may not become toxic. Heat may change many things but leave precisly the molecules essentially intact. Heating ice and melting it does not make water toxic. Boiling water and converting into in vapor or leaving it cool again does not make water toxic i.e. degrade in any sizable degree the water molecules. SFAs and MUFAs are precisely as stable as vater molecule at 94°C. Proteins, amino acids, sugar and other biomolecules are not.

  

« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 11:48:51 pm by alphagruis »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,433
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #91 on: January 13, 2010, 03:10:58 am »
Yes sure I noticed. And your point ist just ridiculous babble of worst type namely of the ones who are "not even wrong" in Pauli's sense. So I didn't comment for charity's sake. Impossible to falsify and thus useless. The scientific work (as opposed to outsiders unsupported babble) that demonstrates that it is the destruction of enzymes in cooked food once more quite different from our own digestive enzymes and made inactive anyway in stomacal acid environment that is responsible of digestive problems in older SAD people simply does not and cannot even exist. Period.

1 of the many dead-on-target criticisms of scientists has always been that of people who are supposed geniuses in their own field, but who deign to offer decidedly unexpert opinions as regards other fields of science in which they are hopelessly unqualified. Linus Pauling was one such example, who was an expert chemist, who told us all
 all to ingest vast amounts of highly processed vitamin C tablets in order to regain health, and, was , inevitably, proven dead wrong. Shockley etc are just more examples thereof, and the above.


Besides, you've already been proven wrong by the WAPF and others. As has been pointed out by them and others, the enzymes in raw foods do not get somehow magically and instantly
 destroyed as soon as they get swallowed down the throat, it takes time(c.30 minutes) before they go from the upper stomach to the lower, where they get fully destroyed over time. So, in other words, enzymes in raw foods are useful, and enzyme-deficient cooked foods progressively wear down the body's systems, re enzyme production etc., thus speeding up aging , wearing down the pancreas etc.
Quote
t suggest but claim that rendered beef fat at 94°C is essentially (not completely please do not distort my phrasing) unaffected by heat. Again nothing to do with fat and muscle cooked in mix and the whole stuff eventually eaten.

And whether you like it or not something may have been modified by heat and nervertheless may not become toxic. Heat may change many things but leave precisly the molecules essentially intact. Heating ice and melting it does not make water toxic. Boiling water and converting into in vapor or leaving it cool again does not make water toxic i.e. degrade in any sizable degree the water molecules. SFAs and MUFAs are precisely as stable as vater molecule at 94°C. Proteins, amino acids, sugar and other biomolecules are not.

Again, this is a worthless, decidedly unscientific comparison between water and animal fat. They are quite different things, as you very well know, on a scientific level.

. And the claims by pro-SFA advocates are decidedly meaningless as regards the stability of SFAs at high temperature. We already know for a fact, that foods very high in cooked SFAs, such as pasteurised butter, are highly injurious to human health re heat-created toxins. Now, granted, there is much less evidence re rendered fats than cooked fats, solely because hardly anyone eats rendered fats any more,
, but  as we all know re science, "absence of evidence does NOT mean evidence of absence". We already know from numerous anecdotal reports among RVAFers,
 that pemmican is by no means a  superior "health food" and can create rather unpleasant negative  side-effects, so it is patently absurd to call pemmican a "health-food".

Offline majormark

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #92 on: January 13, 2010, 03:47:04 am »
1 of the many dead-on-target criticisms of scientists has always been that of people who are supposed geniuses in their own field, but who deign to offer decidedly unexpert opinions as regards other fields of science in which they are hopelessly unqualified. Linus Pauling was one such example, who was an expert chemist, who told us all
 all to ingest vast amounts of highly processed vitamin C tablets in order to regain health, and, was , inevitably, proven dead wrong.

Can you elaborate more on Linus Pauling being wrong and why? Give me some links if you can. I know some people who swear by vitamin C.

William

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2010, 08:42:45 am »
At this time I think that some of Bear's words of wisdom apply:

"I must warn all of you that it is very unlikely that very many will be able to eat as I do over the long term, or in fact, to follow any diet for long which is much different from the one you were trained to as a baby/child. This is because diet is learned much the same way language, dress and behaviour is, and is buried deep and inaccessible, a part of your acculturation/socialisation. The very thing which makes us human is that deep and almost instinctive complex of behaviour.

It requires a powerful will and a determination to change, in order to succeed in adopting the 'extreme' diet which this website is based on. Even those who are morbidly obese, as powerful a motivation as any I can imagine will have 'cravings' for what I call 'non-food' (all vegetation and carbs) which will eventually prove irresistible. A few may manage to stay on the diet for years, but unless you are prepared to stick with it for maybe ten or more years, you will drift back into eating what I consider poison."
http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/Bear_s_Words_of_Wisdom_about63.html

Bear and Ray Audette have both found the way, and no longer try to show the way to the unwilling.

BTW Bear writes that carbohydrates are poison. My experience supports that idea.


Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #94 on: January 13, 2010, 11:20:20 am »
Lex, been as you don't go into detail it would be only correct that Delfuego could give his "doing" or "not doing" himself - assumtions can be very missleading. Your words are "harmfull" to those who are not eating your mix...and after all a few months back you said the following:

I received a note from another raw meat eater on another forum stating that when he eats a food mix of Slanker Dog and Cat food, Ground beef, and fat, he soon experiences a very loose and smelly bowel movement.

Unfortunatley I've noticed the exact same thing since Slankers changed processing plants.  They used to use Kilgor and now they use Four Star.  I've spent the last few weeks tracing down the problem and find that is is caused by the Dog and Cat food.  If I leave the D & C out and just eat the regular meat everything is fine.  If I add even a small amount of D&C to the mix (4 oz D&C to 2 lbs Chili meat) the problem reoccurs.

It appears that the D&C is now contaminated in some way - probably with an unfriendly bacteria.

Since the D&C is not USDA inspected and approved for human consumption there is little that I can do.  Slankers has made it clear that their pet food is not for human consumption and if I chose to eat it, that is my problem.

What I have found out is that Four Star is a much larger processor than Kilgor and so they may have separate facilities and equipment for the non-inspected products.  This means they wouldn't have to follow USDA health standards in that part of the plant as the equipment is never used for products that require inspection.  Just speculation but certainly a possibility.

It looks like I'll be eating just the regular ground meat and fat products as the loose bowl problem is very annoying.  This will also give me the opportunity to see just how important organ meats are to health.  I’ve been eating the D&C just to make sure I get a good variety of organ meats.  However, other long term zero carb raw meat eaters have eaten only muscle meats and experienced no problems whatsoever.  I’ll be leaving the organ meats out of my diet for the next 6 months to 1 year and we’ll see how I feel and how my lab results change.

Lex


I had about 4 days of food mix (the one with the 4oz D&C per pound of regular ground meat), so I decided to finish this off rather than waste it.  For the last two days I haven't experienced the loose bowel problem at all.  Not sure what's going on now.  The mix is from the same batch of D&C that was causing the issue before so I have no idea why the problem should go away unless it is a stronger immune system response or something.  We'll see.   I think I'll continue with the lighter mix of D&C and monitor what happens.

As I've written before, I'm no longer convinced that organ meats are critical to maintianing health, but have continued with my mix of pet food and regular ground meat as 'insurance'.  I'll plod along with a lighter mix of D&C and if all goes well, I'll ramp back up to the heavier mixture and see what happens.  Will report what I find in my journal along the way.

Lex


So let Delfuego speek for himself and you try only muscle meat and fat and we will all be  :o

Nicola

Nicola,
I never attributed any specific statement to Delfuego in my post.  I only stated that he seldom provides details even when asked.  The quotes of mine that you posted above are full of details.  They state exactly what I’m doing and why.  Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Lex

carnivore

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #95 on: January 13, 2010, 02:21:52 pm »
At this time I think that some of Bear's words of wisdom apply:

"I must warn all of you that it is very unlikely that very many will be able to eat as I do over the long term, or in fact, to follow any diet for long which is much different from the one you were trained to as a baby/child. This is because diet is learned much the same way language, dress and behaviour is, and is buried deep and inaccessible, a part of your acculturation/socialisation. The very thing which makes us human is that deep and almost instinctive complex of behaviour.

It requires a powerful will and a determination to change, in order to succeed in adopting the 'extreme' diet which this website is based on. Even those who are morbidly obese, as powerful a motivation as any I can imagine will have 'cravings' for what I call 'non-food' (all vegetation and carbs) which will eventually prove irresistible. A few may manage to stay on the diet for years, but unless you are prepared to stick with it for maybe ten or more years, you will drift back into eating what I consider poison."
http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/Bear_s_Words_of_Wisdom_about63.html

Bear and Ray Audette have both found the way, and no longer try to show the way to the unwilling.

BTW Bear writes that carbohydrates are poison. My experience supports that idea.



I see it is very difficult to not fall into extreme dogmas, like carbs are poison.
And it is also a common tendency to refer to guru.
As I have stated, Bear is not a good example to follow as he does not look particularly healthy and got cancer. In addition, he made several claims (ex: "The body cannot store dietary fat, there is no mechanism for transport across the adipose cell's wal", "You do not need variety in animals nor any organ meats unless you like them", "Grass fed or grain fed beef, nutritionally there is no difference", "You do not have to eat any organ meats other than the occasional bit of liver. In fact, they are inferior to the muscles in food value. Tongue most be over-cooked to be edible.", "Fat is ok cooked at any temp", etc.) that are simply wrong and does not work for many of us. Not surprising many can't follow his dangerous diet. He also "lost" the scientific papers proving many of his unsupported claims...("I have a set of interesting metabolic papers which for some reason have gotten misplaced", "I have misplaced many of my research papers and at the present I am unable to ref the authors and pubs"). His deficient cooked diet does not seem to help to maintain memory... I find his excuse very funny ("I am spending all (too much) of my spare time dealing with the thread and thus cannot search for the papers.") as he is still unable to provide any of these "interesting papers" 3 years later!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2010, 02:47:42 pm by carnivore »

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #96 on: January 13, 2010, 05:58:20 pm »
1 of the many dead-on-target criticisms of scientists has always been that of people who are supposed geniuses in their own field, but who deign to offer decidedly unexpert opinions as regards other fields of science in which they are hopelessly unqualified. Linus Pauling was one such example, who was an expert chemist, who told us all
 all to ingest vast amounts of highly processed vitamin C tablets in order to regain health, and, was , inevitably, proven dead wrong. Shockley etc are just more examples thereof, and the above.

When TD runs out of arguments he merely diverts from the relevant line of reasoning, gets completetly out of topic and moreover switchs heavily to ad hominem attacks.  Very funny and absolutely sterile

Besides, you've already been proven wrong by the WAPF and others. As has been pointed out by them and others, the enzymes in raw foods do not get somehow magically and instantly
 destroyed as soon as they get swallowed down the throat, it takes time(c.30 minutes) before they go from the upper stomach to the lower, where they get fully destroyed over time. So, in other words, enzymes in raw foods are useful, and enzyme-deficient cooked foods progressively wear down the body's systems, re enzyme production etc., thus speeding up aging , wearing down the pancreas etc.
Again, this is a worthless, decidedly unscientific comparison between water and animal fat. They are quite different things, as you very well know, on a scientific level.

The enzymes in food, meat for instance, are just the enzymes involved in the cellular biochemistry of the animal the meat comes from. These enzymes cannot digest the meat. Nothing to do with digestive enzymes. Absolutely nothing. Just pseudoscientific babble of people who don't know what an enzyme is.  

I challenge you to provide just one scientific paper or work that supports your ridiculous claims. Just one.


. And the claims by pro-SFA advocates are decidedly meaningless as regards the stability of SFAs at high temperature. We already know for a fact, that foods very high in cooked SFAs, such as pasteurised butter, are highly injurious to human health re heat-created toxins. Now, granted, there is much less evidence re rendered fats than cooked fats, solely because hardly anyone eats rendered fats any more,
, but  as we all know re science, "absence of evidence does NOT mean evidence of absence". We already know from numerous anecdotal reports among RVAFers,
 that pemmican is by no means a  superior "health food" and can create rather unpleasant negative  side-effects, so it is patently absurd to call pemmican a "health-food".

When TD runs out of arguments he heavily distorts the ideas conveyed by its interlocutor. Very funny and completely sterile.

Unfortunately.

 

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2010, 09:04:40 pm »
Stirring the pot Nicola!

I was pro muscle meats for a while there but have changed my mind, the energy and clarity raw liver gives me just can't be replaced by muscle meats.

I felt unstoppable/powerful on raw liver and ever so slowly lost that feeling during my muscle meat phase. It didn't happen immediately so I thought I was fine but now I know. A friend mentioned the same thing to me recently and now were both back on it.

This is a hot pot! Liver is not the only organ - I still think it's better to mix perhaps a few organs every now and then. Many have mentioned liver just going threw - so if you run I would  -[

Nicola

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,433
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2010, 09:05:02 pm »
When TD runs out of arguments he merely diverts from the relevant line of reasoning, gets completetly out of topic and moreover switchs heavily to ad hominem attacks.  Very funny and absolutely sterile

Sheer hypocrisy, there. But you're right on one thing, this argument is so sterile that there's little point in continuing beyond this. Since you asked re papers, here's some stuff below your other comment.
Quote
The enzymes in food, meat for instance, are just the enzymes involved in the cellular biochemistry of the animal the meat comes from. These enzymes cannot digest the meat. Nothing to do with digestive enzymes. Absolutely nothing. Just pseudoscientific babble of people who don't know what an enzyme is.

I challenge you to provide just one scientific paper or work that supports your ridiculous claims. Just one.

Denying the value of enzymes in raw foods re digestion is just wholly wrong. I can name 2 enzyme supplements derived from enzymes in raw foods, bromelain (from pineapples) and papain(from papayas) which older people commonly use to help digest foods when their own digestive enzymes are too low to do the job. I don't think you can seriously claim that these do not work. Besides, there's Dr Howell's research who provided various papers on the subject of enzymes in raw foods.

Here's an article, with bibilography of multiple studies which you can click on at the bottom:-

http://purehealthsystems.com/enzyme-research.html



Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,433
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Coconut oil and antinutrients
« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2010, 09:41:20 pm »
I see it is very difficult to not fall into extreme dogmas, like carbs are poison.
And it is also a common tendency to refer to guru.
As I have stated, Bear is not a good example to follow as he does not look particularly healthy and got cancer. In addition, he made several claims (ex: "The body cannot store dietary fat, there is no mechanism for transport across the adipose cell's wal", "You do not need variety in animals nor any organ meats unless you like them", "Grass fed or grain fed beef, nutritionally there is no difference", "You do not have to eat any organ meats other than the occasional bit of liver. In fact, they are inferior to the muscles in food value. Tongue most be over-cooked to be edible.", "Fat is ok cooked at any temp", etc.) that are simply wrong and does not work for many of us. Not surprising many can't follow his dangerous diet. He also "lost" the scientific papers proving many of his unsupported claims...("I have a set of interesting metabolic papers which for some reason have gotten misplaced", "I have misplaced many of my research papers and at the present I am unable to ref the authors and pubs"). His deficient cooked diet does not seem to help to maintain memory... I find his excuse very funny ("I am spending all (too much) of my spare time dealing with the thread and thus cannot search for the papers.") as he is still unable to provide any of these "interesting papers" 3 years later!


Bear seems to be very much like Aajonus in this respect. AV always tells people who ask for his lab results that he needs a million dollars(or was that 10 million dollars?) for the results to be published because some other company owns the papers.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk