Author Topic: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables  (Read 33685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2011, 12:20:10 pm »
Oopsie, I think I stirred the pot a bit too much, heh heh. -[ Oh well.

Some good points, though you lost me towards the end there, KD. ???
>"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 KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2011, 12:54:34 pm »
Some good points, though you lost me towards the end there, KD. ???

than a diet constructed of any variety of foods in the paleo pyramid. Even people that might criticize such a diet [just meat/cooked meat] like Sisson or Dr.Harris, or Aajonus, they would still agree on principle that it would be 'less-flawed' than eating a diet so far off the spectrum of our ancestors just because all those random foods fit under fruit, vegetable, or meat.

30 bananas, 5 Brussel sprouts, 1 piece of farmed sashimi from whole foods.
8 heads of lettuce, 4 eggplants, 1 ounce ground beef, 4 papayas
etc...

other than game meats and a handful of fruits, the only truly wild edible foodstuffs are largely ignored as regular food, precisely because we have an artificial abundance of all the other crap which tastes good and fills us up just as easily and we don't actually have to go out and survive for long stretches outdoors and kill. Someone eating cooked ground beef is obviously engaged in some kind of artificial paradigm, but its not necessarily any less so than any other artificial interpretation of 'paleo' by naming any food or any quantity of food unobtainable in natural settings as paleo. Doesn't make either bad, just becomes sort of a silly arguing point when you can measure the nutrition and effects there-of of food in question regardless of it being 'paleo', particularly the benefits of wild foodstuffs. Even between 'the wild' or among 'fruits' you will find some people have problems with wild sugary fruits that they wouldn't with modern hybridized starchy fruits or roots. So basically as per usual, things are not as simple as exclude x, eat y to gain health. All the variables and quantities and other things are what really matter. Including wild food is just one way to tweak those variables when coming from an artificial situation.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2011, 04:07:19 pm »
This just one of many reasons why it can make way more sense to eat wild rice over an orange.
I heavily disagree. Rice ideally needs to be cooked so has heat-created toxins, whereas oranges are eaten raw. Way more sensible to eat oranges rather than wild rice, even if the oranges aren't wild.Plus, rice is non-palaeo so people are less adapted to them.
Quote
If one wants to avoid hypocrisy in criticizing all things neolithic, only then can they not eat pretty much ANY fruits and domesticated meats and be taken seriously. Everyone else just has to choose the most healthy,pastured, or wild foods they can gather to fit their idea of a proper diet. In a weird way, the zero-carb cooked ground-beef eater can be proved based on research to be far more accurate representation of a healthy 'paleo' diet, than a diet constructed of any variety of foods in the paleo pyramid. Even people that might criticize such a diet like Sisson or Dr.Harris, or Aajonus, they would still agree on principle that it would be 'less-flawed' than eating a diet so far off the spectrum of our ancestors just because all those random foods fit under fruit, vegetable, or meat.
Again, I heavily disagree. For one thing, a cooked-zero-carber usually eats other things like pasteurised dairy(yuck!) and cooked eggs, and usually avoids all organ-meats, and prefers to eat only intensively-farmed 100 percent grainfed meats for the extra fat, so is very much further off indeed from the palaeo food pyramid. Also, eating according to taste(as well as instinct by the way), can make one eat whatever is necessary to be healthy. For example, when I was 100 percent raw vegan/fruitarian, I would get massive hunger-pangs which were never sated by eating plant foods, but cooked animal foods gave me permanent stomach-aches(and I had slowly lost my taste for the latter over time), so that led me eventually to try eating sizeable amounts of raw animal foods, because they were the only foods that solved the problem.


There are other aspects to consider:- raw, solid vegetables are not very tasty, to put it mildly, so people don't  generally get urges to eat vast amounts thereof; that is why Aajonus recommended juicing raw vegetables so as  to persuade people to eat far more raw veg than they ever would otherwise, plus his recipes all include adding sweeteners like raw cream or raw honey to the raw veggie-juice in order to disguise the revolting taste. Similiarly, excessive fruit-intake usually involves problems re blood-sugar-levels, so anyone paying any attention to their body re instincts/tastes/other sensations, would naturally sense that fruit shouldn't be consumed too much. Of course, if one follows a philosophy/way of thinking  which bans raw animal foods like raw veganism (and only some of the Instinctos), the above doesn't work, but if one genuinely follows one's tastes/instincts/sensations, one can do quite well. Besides, as I pointed out, one can get all the healthy nutrients one needs even if one is eating a 90 percent raw plant food, 10 percent raw animal food diet.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 07:19:55 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2011, 04:11:56 pm »
30 bananas, 5 Brussel sprouts, 1 piece of farmed sashimi from whole foods.
8 heads of lettuce, 4 eggplants, 1 ounce ground beef, 4 papayas
etc...


Brussels sprouts taste foul when cooked, and are a notorious part of really awful boarding-school-dinners. I know they are pretty tasteless when raw, as I foolishly ate some thawed ones a few times as a child. Egg-plants? They are always cooked, I seriously doubt they are that pleasant to taste when raw, either -checking online, they are reported to have a nasty, bitter taste, no doubt because they contain nicotine and the like in them. I know for sure that raw lettuce could never be a solid staple as it's pretty tasteless unless one adds lots of sauces onto it(adding sauces is not very Instincto a habit!).

What it boils down to is that unsuitable non-palaeo foods like rice usually need to be cooked and have sauces added to them to make them more palatable. But the whole point of Instincto is to avoid all processing.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 07:24:22 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 turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2011, 05:35:11 pm »
Brussels sprouts taste foul when cooked, and are a notorious part of really awful boarding-school-dinners. I know they are pretty tasteless when raw, as I foolishly ate some thawed ones a few times as a child. Egg-plants? They are always cooked, I seriously doubt they are that pleasant to taste when raw, either. I know for sure that raw lettuce could never be a solid staple as it's pretty tasteless unless one adds lots of sauces onto it(adding sauces is not very Instincto a habit!).

What it boils down to is that unsuitable non-palaeo foods like rice usually need to be cooked and have sauces added to them to make them more palatable. But the whole point of Instincto is to avoid all processing.
The indian(hindi) word for eggplant is "baigan" derived from "be-guna" - which means "without merit", basically dont bother eating.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 07:24:54 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2011, 01:08:54 am »
I heavily disagree. Rice ideally needs to be cooked so has heat-created toxins, whereas oranges are eaten raw. Way more sensible to eat oranges rather than wild rice, even if the oranges aren't wild.Plus, rice is non-palaeo so people are less adapted to them. Again, I heavily disagree. For one thing, a cooked-zero-carber usually eats other things like pasteurised dairy(yuck!) and cooked eggs, and usually avoids all organ-meats, and prefers to eat only intensively-farmed 100 percent grainfed meats for the extra fat, so is very much further off indeed from the palaeo food pyramid. Also, eating according to taste(as well as instinct by the way), can make one eat whatever is necessary to be healthy. For example, when I was 100 percent raw vegan/fruitarian, I would get massive hunger-pangs which were never sated by eating plant foods, but cooked animal foods gave me permanent stomach-aches(and I had slowly lost my taste for the latter over time), so that led me eventually to try eating sizable amounts of raw animal foods, because they were the only foods that solved the problem.


There are other aspects to consider:- raw, solid vegetables are not very tasty, to put it mildly, so people don't  generally get urges to eat vast amounts thereof; that is why Aajonus recommended juicing raw vegetables so as  to persuade people to eat far more raw veg than they ever would otherwise, plus his recipes all include adding sweeteners like raw cream or raw honey to the raw veggie-juice in order to disguise the revolting taste. Similarly, excessive fruit-intake usually involves problems re blood-sugar-levels, so anyone paying any attention to their body re instincts/tastes/other sensations, would naturally sense that fruit shouldn't be consumed too much. Of course, if one follows a philosophy/way of thinking  which bans raw animal foods like raw veganism (and only some of the Instinctos), the above doesn't work, but if one genuinely follows one's tastes/instincts/sensations, one can do quite well. Besides, as I pointed out, one can get all the healthy nutrients one needs even if one is eating a 90 percent raw plant food, 10 percent raw animal food diet.

I would rather eat A orange over wild rice for sure, but would rather eat a diet of wild foods that includes wild rice (like) than some modern hybridized diet inconsiderate of many internal factors and disguised as more natural when it ain't. One just has to weight the results of a food/diet, thats it, as everything is more or less changed. I don't have to praise which false modern permutation is correct, only weigh the results. The point is, is that the emphasis of Sisson, DeVany, Vitalis, Aajonus on dissecting ancient and traditional ways of eating and its impact on modern health is far superior IN RESULTS than merely eating foods devoid of 'toxins'. People can survive to 100 eating no raw nutrients, so just existing on any known percentage is not proof of anything of merit in a diet. Just merely shifting people who are thriving on even the most cooked of above approaches to 'raw' or 'paleo' has no bearing on success whatsoever, when ignoring all the other factors. Even experiencing and promoting 100% raw diet, one should be able gauge the health and success of such systems over all the other rawists insisting on purity over rationality. Without disagreeing that the diet you generalize as being 'zero-carb' is perhaps unhealthful, it still attempts to replicate the kinds of fuel sources one would eat, so the foods themselves become just mediocre versions, not complete fabrications.

Everything you say here about juice is wrong of course, as juice tastes fine and the argument is reversed in that vegetable fiber is seen as harmful by that philosophy which is what rationalizes eating juice and not because not enough vegetables will be eaten otherwise. The creams and so forth are specific methods to my knowledge and not taste enhancers. Wrong also on eggplant and lettuce, as these are eating by even hygienists and predominately fruitarians raw without spices or condiments. I have no problem eating heads of lettuce daily, and would enjoy it, but knowledge would keep me from doing so.

The main issue on topic is that the majority of wild foods actually eaten by traditional peoples are seen as inferior in taste or excluded due to unavailability in comparison to the modern foods, so obviously there is some disconnect there.

-When cooking, processing, alcohol, and medicinal qualities are taken into account as predating most foods available
-that certain foods impact healing positively or negatively,
-and no one has any dogma about what is considered healthy,
then Vitalis'/DeVany's research begins to actually make sense as being far more important than just avoiding 'bad stuff' defined by humans.

Offline Nation

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2011, 01:36:58 am »
Rice ideally needs to be cooked

If a wild grain hasn't been dried, it can be eaten raw. Why is it not considered as paleo as any wild fruit/veggie? It will have moisture, water content, etc just like any other raw food. If it's raw, wild and edible, why would it be considered less paleo? Who's to say paleo men never ate em (in small quantities of course). I'm asking these questions because it seems like what is considered RP or not is an arbitrary opinion.

Another example would be nuts, i've had freshly picked almonds and they are nothing like dried almonds but in most people's eyes, dried nuts are still RP. Why are they held to a different standard than, say, something like pemmican, both have been dried/cooked. It seems arbitrary again! (My point wasn't that Pemmican should be considered RP but that dried nuts are not RP using the same logic).

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2011, 01:42:00 am »
Berries are one of six staple food categories of the Hadza identified by scientists (Sex Differences in Food Preferences of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers, http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07601616.pdf). The Hadza live in East-Central Africa, just south of what is supposed to be the cradle of humanity.


Interesting article. In Hadzaland, tubers are a much more reliable source of carbohydrates than berries:

Quote
Hadzaland receives considerable rain (300-600mm) during the months of December
through May, and almost no rain from June through November, so there is a marked contrast
between the rainy season and the dry season. Most foods vary seasonally, with the exception of
some tubers and some game animals.
(...)
Many Hadza tubers are continuously available
throughout the year, and are a source of carbohydrates.
(...)
For example, because we collected the data in three different regions over two years (one year
without any berries available and one with several species of berries available) ...

Offline Nation

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2011, 02:16:30 am »
nifty.

I tried raw sweet potato the other day, it's incredible how sweet and filling it is. What other tubers do guys eat?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2011, 03:46:58 am »
  People can survive to 100 eating no raw nutrients, so just existing on any known percentage is not proof of anything of merit in a diet. Just merely shifting people who are thriving on even the most cooked of above approaches to 'raw' or 'paleo' has no bearing on success whatsoever, when ignoring all the other factors.
The above comment is meaningless - after all, the fact that people can live to 100 or even 122 on a cooked diet does not remotely validate a cooked diet or make it somehow "better" than a raw, palaeolithic diet, like Instincto. After all, there are many other non-dietary methods that have vastly increased health due to modern medicine giving people artificial hips etc. One can safely state therefore that a raw, palaeolithic diet would make a person's lifestyle much more bearable so that they could also live to 122 but without the need for such frequent hospitalisation/surgery etc.  as would be required for cooked-palaeodieters and others in order to live that long.
Quote
Everything you say here about juice is wrong of course, as juice tastes fine and the argument is reversed in that vegetable fiber is seen as harmful by that philosophy which is what rationalizes eating juice and not because not enough vegetables will be eaten otherwise. The creams and so forth are specific methods to my knowledge and not taste enhancers. Wrong also on eggplant and lettuce, as these are eaten by even hygienists and predominately fruitarians raw without spices or condiments. I have no problem eating heads of lettuce daily, and would enjoy it, but knowledge would keep me from doing so.
The above is amazing b*llsh*t. Its a simple fact that RVAFers complain about the nasty taste of veggie-juice all the time, and have to add sweeteners like raw honey, raw cream all the time to make it bearable re taste.

Plus, the whole point of juicing raw veg is to break down the cell-walls and thus release the nutrients. The trouble is that this makes the antinutrients in the raw veg also more bioavailable as a result, which is why RVAFers complain all the time about nutritional deficiencies gained from drinking too much raw veggie-juice. Eating raw solid vegetables is fine as the bland taste of raw, solid vegetables makes one eat far less of them, so intake of antinutrients via raw solid veg is negligible. Sure, juicing them and adding sweeteners like raw honey makes them more palatable , but the whole point of Instincto is that any form of processing is a bad idea.

As for egg-plant , it tastes foul/very bitter because it contains antinutrients; one such antinutrient is nicotine, in an amount equivalent to one-twentieth of a cigarette.It does sound as though your knowledge of juicing is pretty poor. I mean, granted one or two veg like raw carrots come across fine when juiced, same with fruits, but raw veggie-juice in general is pretty foul-tasting, which is why coconut-cream, raw honey and raw cream are used all the time by Primal Dieters - common knowledge.
Quote
The main issue on topic is that the majority of wild foods actually eaten by traditional peoples are seen as inferior in taste or excluded due to unavailability in comparison to the modern foods, so obviously there is some disconnect there.
Granted, there needs to be  more awareness made in the RVAF diet community about the desirability of raw insects, or "high-meat" etc. But I would heavily disagree that they lack taste; I am sure someone brought up on live witchetty grubs and the like would love their taste.
Quote
-When cooking, processing, alcohol, and medicinal qualities are taken into account as predating most foods available
-that certain foods impact healing positively or negatively,
-and no one has any dogma about what is considered healthy,
then Vitalis'/DeVany's research begins to actually make sense as being far more important than just avoiding 'bad stuff' defined by humans.
  The big problem that fouls up your argument completely beyond repair is the fact that cooking/processing, alters the nutritional composition of those foods to a far more harmful extent than the millenia of inbreeding that the Neolithic era has inflicted on the raw meats/veg/fruits we eat nowadays.

There have been constant attempts to suggest that either the raw component is the only really important factor(which is what Primal Dieters and the like advocate)  or that the palaeo aspect is the only really important issue and that the raw aspect is irrelevant(usually espoused by partially-raw zero-carbers).  Unfortunately, both are clearly wrong, given the multitude of RVAFers who do badly on either raw dairy and/or cooked foods, palaeo- or otherwise.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2011, 03:55:51 am »
If a wild grain hasn't been dried, it can be eaten raw. Why is it not considered as paleo as any wild fruit/veggie? It will have moisture, water content, etc just like any other raw food. If it's raw, wild and edible, why would it be considered less paleo? Who's to say paleo men never ate em (in small quantities of course). I'm asking these questions because it seems like what is considered RP or not is an arbitrary opinion.

Another example would be nuts, i've had freshly picked almonds and they are nothing like dried almonds but in most people's eyes, dried nuts are still RP. Why are they held to a different standard than, say, something like pemmican, both have been dried/cooked. It seems arbitrary again! (My point wasn't that Pemmican should be considered RP but that dried nuts are not RP using the same logic).
First of all, what is considered "palaeo" is whatever can be eaten raw without processing/cooking. Rice like grains, legumes etc. contains antinutrients so is better cooked, and isn't palaeo.

Plus, when one is on an all-raw diet, things like antinutrients in raw nuts/raw rice tend to foul up one's digestion, so would never have been a staple in rawpalaeo-eras way back when. I personally don't view raw nuts as being rawpalaeo, anyway.Plus, due to laziness before going rawpalaeo, I tried eating raw rice, and it tasted extremely bland and didn't benefit me re health or digestion.

Technically, drying is still sort of rawpalaeo(though not ideal) but any cooking is definitely NOT rawpalaeo.  So dried raw nuts are still rawpalaeo but pemmican , which is cooked, is NOT rawpalaeo.
"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 KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2011, 04:06:48 am »
yeah precisely, its meaningless to cite people that you heard about over the internet doing fine on small amounts of animal foods and whatever unnatural amounts of fruits to validate that because these people won't even get blood tests or actually can prove any feats of health that people on SWD can achieve.

I like veggie juice, any kind strait, don't drink it, so whatever information you grabbed off usenet groups 10 years ago doesn't apply to everyone. I don't know what Aajonus believes, but I can tell you anyone who finds the taste or digestive issues or headaches with it I'd say is incredibly toxic, considering many raw vegan people with questionable levels of health I know drink it strait without animal products or sweeteners. I'll just repeat all the things you cited have specifc funcitons to Primal Dieters,a nd never seen a single person juice foods and use these things regularly and i've met a few, so I'll go by that. You are not right again about the function, but who cares.

your problem in thinking is as always that you cite evidence of a harmful thing without comparing it to the damage done by such arbitary thinking in regards to issues of what is necessary to create health in a modern situation. the concept is simple. you can't cite one type of thing as superior to another by using the term natural when both are not. No matter how much information you can throw on it, results rule andn ot studies on paper or concepts on what is good. Vitalis's stuff is a testament to this after having experiences and knowledge of a spectrum of raw approaches. Choices arn't made based on what is easy or good about cooking, processing or harvesting of wild foods, only that these things are tools that CAN potentially outweigh just eating the raw foods that fit under categories as being non-toxic. The reality is the majority of people increase their health on even programs I could care less about following myself like Sisson etc...then they ever did eating 100% raw, so while that can be linked largely to vegetarian concepts, obviously there is something in the cooking and processing which can still create value, whereas something like excess sugar will always create problems no matter what the diet.

as for grubs -like high meat- I would eat them in a second without question or thought to taste, anyone who wouldn't is a fucking wuss who eats some baby diet.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2011, 04:10:36 am »
On Rambutans:

My wife thought so too.  But you should have seen how my wife gets addicted to these rambutans in the past 3 years.  She would order our maids to buy 10 kilos at a time.  She and our 3 kids would gorge on it the whole day.  Probably finish off the 10 kilos in 2 or 3 days.

I wouldn’t worry about that since cultivated rambutans are very near their wild counterparts, AFAIK. When I used to get some, I ate a lot of it also. I especially like the old ones getting black and fermenting: there’s a delightful mixture of sugar and alcohol inside and I could almost get drunk!    

Quote
Our 3rd child, the girl turned out to be the most carb sensitive and we blamed too much rambutan plus of course rice with her.  Tooth Decay.  Had her stop eating rice and fruit for some weeks to correct it. I even put her on zero carb diet for 3 days to stop a bad painful tooth decay infection.

It’s hard to correlate tooth decay with a specific food, because it’s not a disease happening overnight. It may have been due to previous nutrition or to other foods (What kind of rice was she consuming? Polished or whole rice? What else had she been commonly eating?). Even when we get a flu, we are usually never sure which food caused it and even whether it’s due to a food eaten shortly before or pehaps long ago.

I strongly suspect my own tooth decay (which mostly happen before I was 18) was due to white sugar (sucrose) and white flour, but I think it was rather a combination of both and other diet factors which all together generated appalling deficiencies.

Quote
Durians in manila cost 120 to 150 per kilo with the shell.

Is that about 2.30 € / kg ? (I found 1.00 PHP = 0.0167795 EUR)
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 04:20:41 am by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2011, 05:38:05 am »
yeah precisely, its meaningless to cite people that you heard about over the internet doing fine on small amounts of animal foods and whatever unnatural amounts of fruits to validate that because these people won't even get blood tests or actually can prove any feats of health that people on SWD can achieve.
  This is, first of all, rather foolish since a) I did once try doing small amounts of raw animal foods plus lots of raw fruits and did far better on that  than I ever did on SAD or cooked-palaeodiet and b) there is plentiful scientific evidence re the harmful effects of heat-created toxins. More to the point, blood-tests are absolutely meaningless as most scientists, nowadays, aren't even sure what cholesterol-levels truly signify re actual health, let alone other aspects of blood-tests. I wince every time that someone like Lex or whoever suggests that such tests mean anything given that the science behind it is so appallingly poor.
Quote
I like veggie juice, any kind strait, don't drink it, so whatever information you grabbed off usenet groups 10 years ago doesn't apply to everyone.
I actually tried veggie-juice plenty of times during my raw vegan phase(wheatgrass for example which tastes foul and is the holy grail for raw vegan diets, by the way) and I even experimented with them during my RVAF diet years, so your protestations are absolutely LAUGHABLE. And given that RVAFers routinely complain of the taste of raw veggie-juice without sweeteners..


Well, perhaps you just stuck to raw carrot-juice  or raw fruit-juice or perhaps there is a rather more serious accusation involved....

Quote
I don't know what Aajonus believes, but I can tell you anyone who finds the taste or digestive issues or headaches with it I'd say is incredibly toxic, considering many raw vegan people with questionable levels of health I know drink it strait without animal products or sweeteners. I'll just repeat all the things you cited have specifc funcitons to Primal Dieters,a nd never seen a single person juice foods and use these things regularly and i've met a few, so I'll go by that. You are not right again about the function, but who cares.
  B*llsh*t again. Like I said before, Primal Dieters have repeatedly complained online about health-problems gained from excessive-raw-veggie-juice consumption(more than 1 glass a day), and many regained their health once they cut out this non-palaeo food, plus many had recovered their health on raw meats before they even got round to trying raw veggie-juice(juicers are expensive after all). What is ridiculous re your above absurd comments is that raw vegans routinely eat/drink things that they find taste foul, not because they want to get healthy, but because the ONE main reason they are raw vegan is that they want to be kind to animals, and figure that they must suffer therefore re lack of taste of raw veggie-juice etc.
Quote
your problem in thinking is as always that you cite evidence of a harmful thing without comparing it to the damage done by such arbitary thinking in regards to issues of what is necessary to create health in a modern situation. the concept is simple. you can't cite one type of thing as superior to another by using the term natural when both are not. No matter how much information you can throw on it, results rule andn ot studies on paper or concepts on what is good. Vitalis's stuff is a testament to this after having experiences and knowledge of a spectrum of raw approaches. Choices arn't made based on what is easy or good about cooking, processing or harvesting of wild foods, only that these things are tools that CAN potentially outweigh just eating the raw foods that fit under categories as being non-toxic. The reality is the majority of people increase their health on even programs I could care less about following myself like Sisson etc...then they ever did eating 100% raw, so while that can be linked largely to vegetarian concepts, obviously there is something in the cooking and processing which can still create value, whereas something like excess sugar will always create problems no matter what the diet.
  No, the actual reality is that people do very badly on cooked-palaeodiets. I have been a member of cooked-palaeodiet forums for many years now, and the reports they make are PATHETIC compared to reports made from people on raw diets, even those which include a lot of raw dairy in them.At best, health-improvements mostly involve minor benefits such as slight improvement in diabetes and the like.Raw foods offer far better results time and again, given endless reports on other RVAF diet forums.

Plus, then there's your specious claim:-
"cite one type of thing as superior to another by using the term natural when both are not"

This is particularly moronic since cooking is a far harsher process and far more damaging to   foods than millenia of inbreeding of raw meats/raw fruits/raw vegetables. In other words, some things are clearly FAR more natural than others, so are far healthier than more unnatural methods such as cooking.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 05:51:34 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2011, 06:20:27 am »
The obvious fallacy behind defending cooked foods, however palaeo, is that the above accusations against raw foods, such as most not being like they were 100,000 years ago due to domestication/agriculture and therefore unnatural, is that cooked-foods also share the same problems but are even worse as they are extensively harmed by the process of cooking as well, re the addition of heat-created toxins as well as the destruction of enzymes and bacteria.

The claims re a few people reacting to wild, raw fruits even, are also pointless as these few people get those very unusual problems as a result  of their health being harmed by the decades-long consumption of  cooked foods. In other words, if they had been rawpalaeo from the word go they would have been fine. More to the point, for such people it would make far more sense, health-wise, to go raw zero-carb than to go cooked-zero-carb(after all people who react negatively to raw carbs also react to cooked/processed carbs, indeed usually in a worse way).
"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 KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2011, 08:14:56 am »
Tyler, I'm glad you cite your experiences whenever these types of things are discussed, but your experiences and a few others you have read about over the internet do not a scientific rule make.

if you have ever spent 5 seconds in a juice bar you will realize people indeed will order strait green juices or strait wheatgrass juices. if you can accept that, then you'll have to excuse me thinking everying you say her just becomes one more worse assumption about people you have never met and reveals things you don't apparently understand. The purpose of a juicer IS its function which is to remove pulp so that nutrition enters the blood stream without any digestion in the stomach. One can cite this as its detriment as well as its function, but that is essentially the only way that tool works. The point is not to concentrate nutriton, but to achieve nutrtion that cannot be gleaned naturally or can ferment in the digestive system or aid healing by avoid pulling needed energy away to internal processing akin to fasting.

I, having lived in New York and Miami and other places with high concentrations of health nuts of various persuasions, have met alot of such raw foodists and cooked paleos in person. I know for certain what you have to say in many cases means absolutely nothing compared to the actual results. I have met countless people with equally certain mindsets that end of being a downfall in regards to resisting anything 'unnatural' even when the results are not better than others who eat entirely unnatural food. I'm not recommending a cooked diet or even any cooked foods so that as always is left field to me. As per bloodtests, seeing since I am sure you would cite the same researchers on problems with cooked foods...I can only say that people that are genuinely healthy will LOOK healthy, be virile, strong and have good blood work. Blood work can also test for things like D or B-12 which are undeniably accurate in assessing basic performance. If people can't supply ALL these things, their theories that look good on paper are worthless. This does not suggest anyone who looks good or can get a clean bill of health from a doctors is 'healthy' in the sense that raw fooders will talk about which ironically can only be 'proven' in dark matter microscopes or whatever.

Things are indeed more healthful then others, and I would rather eat SOME hybridized or domesticated foods than SOME cooked wild foods, but all and all there is no clear demarcation line for me. This includes a large midsection of things that are either harmful or healthful depending on one's circumstances and the quantity consumed. If you are going to tell me that eating tons of oranges daily is automatically better than a little steamed brussel sprouts (or better wild dandelion) then I really don't think you have a very good understanding of how modern humans process food or the complexity of the human body. For these reason I will choose to pass judgments on those who pass judgments on others who provide no evidence of their own 'health'

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2011, 04:04:30 pm »
  cooking is a far harsher process and far more damaging to   foods than millenia of inbreeding of raw meats/raw fruits/raw vegetables.

That´s the point. Even if cooking is perfectly paleo, it has obviously still negative effects on health.

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2011, 04:07:16 pm »

In Hadzaland, tubers are a much more reliable source of carbohydrates than berries

Quote
During the berry season however, they may sometimes eat almost nothing but one type of berry for two months. A variety of wild tubers, three species in particular, are the staple of the diet since they can be found all year round.

http://books.google.de/books?id=nrMRezmNrPcC&pg=PA690&lpg=PA690&dq=hadza+berries&source=bl&ots=WTXBmr59yu&sig=aa9_Bs5S8pnQsAtl9YSjojqv_ks&hl=de&ei=5U03TbzMM4rAswa5pLSiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hadza%20berries&f=false


Quote
...  the Hadza live in an environment that is more like the one in which we evolved than is that of the !Kung ...
Neither the !Kung nor the Hadza nor both societies together can be a sufficient basis for drawing conclusions about the environments of evolutionary adaptedness. Given that some of our ancestors dwelt in tropical forests, groups like the Aka, Efe and Ache are also key models. Before and during the human dispersal out of Africa, it is highly likely that adaptation to shorelines, including shellfish collecting, was important ...
But the Hadza and the !Kung do tell us much about what it means to hunt and gather in warm climates on open plains, especially in Africa, the site of most of human evolution.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/at-the-cutting-edge-of-human-adaptation

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2011, 05:57:32 pm »
Tyler, I'm glad you cite your experiences whenever these types of things are discussed, but your experiences and a few others you have read about over the internet do not a scientific rule make.
  Unfortunately for you, issues with raw veggie-juice are very common among ex-primal dieters, though of course not as common as negative experiences with raw dairy.
Quote
if you have ever spent 5 seconds in a juice bar you will realize people indeed will order strait green juices or strait wheatgrass juices. if you can accept that, then you'll have to excuse me thinking everying you say her just becomes one more worse assumption about people you have never met and reveals things you don't apparently understand. The purpose of a juicer IS its function which is to remove pulp so that nutrition enters the blood stream without any digestion in the stomach. One can cite this as its detriment as well as its function, but that is essentially the only way that tool works. The point is not to concentrate nutriton, but to achieve nutrition that cannot be gleaned naturally or can ferment in the digestive system or aid healing by avoid pulling needed energy away to internal processing akin to fasting.
  Well, virtually all the juice-bars I have come across in the UK and elsewhere sell mostly freshly-squeezed fruit-juices, plus usually only a few raw veggie-juices(wheatgrass is the most common one sold). The issue of whether people drink the raw veggie-juice straight is meaningless - after all, plenty of people complain about the revolting taste of wheatgrass, but still drink plenty of it because they are under the erroneous assumption that it is healthy. Also, I  pointed out that Primal Dieters who traditionally drink raw veggie-juice as 25 percent(!) of their diet feel a strong need to add raw sweeteners to the mix to enhance the taste, given the quantity they take in.

And AV and others routinely recommend juicing precisely because juicing increases the amounts of nutrients.

As for your stating that raw veggie-juice is an unnatural process, the whole point of Instincto is that such processing is ultimately harmful, and many RVAFers, mainly ex-Primal Dieters , would heartily agree with the Instincto ban on juicing and other processing.
Quote
I, having lived in New York and Miami and other places with high concentrations of health nuts of various persuasions, have met alot of such raw foodists and cooked paleos in person. I know for certain what you have to say in many cases means absolutely nothing compared to the actual results. I have met countless people with equally certain mindsets that end of being a downfall in regards to resisting anything 'unnatural' even when the results are not better than others who eat entirely unnatural food. I'm not recommending a cooked diet or even any cooked foods so that as always is left field to me. As per bloodtests, seeing since I am sure you would cite the same researchers on problems with cooked foods...I can only say that people that are genuinely healthy will LOOK healthy, be virile, strong and have good blood work. Blood work can also test for things like D or B-12 which are undeniably accurate in assessing basic performance. If people can't supply ALL these things, their theories that look good on paper are worthless. This does not suggest anyone who looks good or can get a clean bill of health from a doctors is 'healthy' in the sense that raw fooders will talk about which ironically can only be 'proven' in dark matter microscopes or whatever.
  A number of the people I've come across who focused on blood-tests and the like as a measure of their health were clearly orthorexic to a certain extent. Not saying all were, but focusing too much on details like exact number of calories a day, blood-tests, the exact amount of daily protein-intake to ensure it doesn't go above the recommended 100g a day(according to some scientists) etc., tends to be extreme, and doesn't lead anywhere since much of the science behind blood-tests is not clear, let alone things like the "ideal" percentage of body-fat or whatever. Measuring vitamin-levels is one (minor)thing, but a number of RVAFers have stated that their health had recovered, even though their cholesterol-levels  showed, at the time of the tests, that they were supposedly not healthy, among other aspects.

Plus, "looking good" or performing well in sports means precious little in a modern world where people take lots of sports-enhancing drugs, use plastic surgery or other artificial techniques to make them seem more healthy than they really are. I always wince when someone posts well-lit photos plus "tests" of various dietary gurus like Art DeVany, as these provide no real accurate idea of just how healthy that person really is. Of course, that person's entire medical file throughout life would be a bit more useful to us, but, sadly, doctors are bound by confidentiality laws.

As for that comment re eating tons of oranges a day compared to a little cooked brussels sprouts, that would only apply to those Instinctos who frowned on meat-consumption. I mean, if one genuinely followed one's instincts/tastes, one would inevitably eat a very varied diet, not just tons of oranges. The problem with Instincto is that some were warned away from raw meats, which was hardly "instinctive".

Of course, Instincto, while useful for many, cannot be useful to all. I am thinking of those raw, zero-carbers who, as a result of damage done by decades of eating heavily refined/cooked carbs, have lost their ability to handle even raw carbs. Such would be best placed to restrict their diets to raw animal foods only, rather than having a wider variety of raw foods.


 
Quote
Things are indeed more healthful then others, and I would rather eat SOME hybridized or domesticated foods than SOME cooked wild foods, but all and all there is no clear demarcation line for me. This includes a large midsection of things that are either harmful or healthful depending on one's circumstances and the quantity consumed. If you are going to tell me that eating tons of oranges daily is automatically better than a little steamed brussel sprouts (or better wild dandelion) then I really don't think you have a very good understanding of how modern humans process food or the complexity of the human body. For these reason I will choose to pass judgments on those who pass judgments on others who provide no evidence of their own 'health'
The whole point of a raw, palaeolithic diet is that both the raw and the palaeolithic aspects are promoted as being roughly equally important. Granted, for some people,  either the raw aspect or the palaeo aspect is much more important to their health
"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 KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2011, 11:45:49 pm »
as usual, this just illustrates points I am not making. I never said anything about instinctos. and the examples I gave had nothing to do with how an instincto person eats, just examples of diets that can be construed 'paleo' but include no foods found in the paleolithic or even recent ancient civilization. The issue I am putting forward that there are other methods  to constructing a diet (in reference to wild foods convo) that Vitalis points out as being superior to fabrications claiming as long as things are 'raw' they are therefore healthy. No matter how healthy a diet one can construct thinking this way, the IDEA is wrong and unhealthy and is exclusive of a variety of possibly necessary tools to create health. The only criticism of instincto in regards to this one (too many easy others) is that the diets are obviously not matching up with how a human would eat in nature, and don't provide for the kind of health necessary to actually hunt and kill the foods eaten, so its even more fabricated.

Without any of these requirements/constant excuses towards objective assessment of health, you have to admit all you have on paper is the idea that raw foods create health, and whatever experiences you have on other approaches tinged by a very critical/skeptical viewpoint on most kinds of healing.

Perhaps you can actually argue against this actual reality without bringing up mystery accounts of people you have read about and just gauge the actual evidence of people who have increased their health when they did not on other raw approaches. This is what I meant by what I said with witnessing others, being a perceptive person not easily swayed by mirrors and magic in real time. I believe that is something that can be gauged without agonizing over plastic surgery.

the difference for me is even though I can have some kind of pride in my particular all-raw or virtually all raw program for myself, doesn't mean I can't see the obvious superiority of other programs such as Vitais or DeVany in creating health to vast permutations of all raw all 'paleo' diets.

I don't need to make up excuses and carry massive contradictions to make myself feel better about such seeming unfairness to my raw superiority. You say raw vegans have to supplement to be healthy and in other threads say that supplements are useless. You say juice tastes bad like its some kind of law, and yet one of the main criticisms among raw vegans critical of juicing is that it is 'too sweeet' and therefore makes i easy to 'overeat' vegetables. Also, its impossible to create more nutrition in a vegetable. Most importantly, you You totally discount that MOST long term vegans are against the sugar in fresh modern fruits, have the lab work to back it up, and do far better on what amounts to neolithic forms of carbs, sprouting, processing and fermentation than fresh whole and raw fruit. This when you acknowledge that cooked plaoes can do better according to you than raw vegans (but are still massive failures- of course!). SO obviously there is some other chain of command to raw fruits > anything not raw, and even cooked wild foods < anything raw. I believe that is where the discussion is and has nothing to do with anything else you have made it out to be.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 11:56:24 pm by KD »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2011, 02:25:07 am »
as usual, this just illustrates points I am not making. I never said anything about instinctos. and the examples I gave had nothing to do with how an instincto person eats, just examples of diets that can be construed 'paleo' but include no foods found in the paleolithic or even recent ancient civilization. The issue I am putting forward that there are other methods  to constructing a diet (in reference to wild foods convo) that Vitalis points out as being superior to fabrications claiming as long as things are 'raw' they are therefore healthy. No matter how healthy a diet one can construct thinking this way, the IDEA is wrong and unhealthy and is exclusive of a variety of possibly necessary tools to create health. The only criticism of instincto in regards to this one (too many easy others) is that the diets are obviously not matching up with how a human would eat in nature, and don't provide for the kind of health necessary to actually hunt and kill the foods eaten, so its even more fabricated.
I've come across a very similiar sort of argument where someone erroneously claimed that it was impossible to correctly follow a cooked-palaeolithic diet as we no longer had access to the exact same foods that palaeo peoples had such as a cooked mammoth steak or wild aurochs meat etc. It's a bogus argument, of course, as people are not trying to 100 percent emulate their palaeolithic ancestors(or raw-eating ancestors) in absolutely ALL respects anyway - we hardly are going to strip naked or wear loin-cloths and hunt mammoths nowadays. The whole point is that as long as we follow general principles re our palaeolithic ancestors we will be healthier than if we followed more modern methods such as  cooking food(cooking was only invented in the last 10 percent of the palaeo era), or juicing or rendering or drying and the like.

And the claims re people on such rawpalaeo diets  not being able to survive and hunt in the wild while following such diets makes absolutely no sense either. Indeed the added burden of having to cook each meat-meal (for a cooked-palaeodiet) would waste a lot of time that could have been spent on hunting/foraging instead.

More to the point, we are NOT just saying that " as long as things are raw, we will be  healthy". We are stating that "as long as we are eating raw and palaeo, and not eating grainfed meats, and listening to our bodies' needs etc. etc., we will be healthier than someone eating that same type of  diet in cooked form". As for the "variety of tools to create health" comment, we RPDers all accept that some alternative non-dietary methods can help speed up health-recovery if used as well). What it boils down to is that cooking, per se, does not confer any benefits in most cases; and in the cases where it does provide benefits, those benefits are cancelled out by the other damage done by cooking that food.


Quote

Without any of these requirements/constant excuses towards objective assessment of health, you have to admit all you have on paper is the idea that raw foods create health, and whatever experiences you have on other approaches tinged by a very critical/skeptical viewpoint on most kinds of healing.

Perhaps you can actually argue against this actual reality without bringing up mystery accounts of people you have read about and just gauge the actual evidence of people who have increased their health when they did not on other raw approaches. This is what I meant by what I said with witnessing others, being a perceptive person not easily swayed by mirrors and magic in real time. I believe that is something that can be gauged without agonizing over plastic surgery.

Anecdotal reports from RVAFers gleaned from 10 years of reading endless posts on other RVAF diet forums are, of course, valid. Besides, there is actually far more additional scientific evidence favouring rawpalaeodiets than there is favouring cooked-palaeodiets, for rather obvious reasons, if you think about it(re additional studies done on the negative effects of heat-created toxins, the hygiene hypothesis theory etc. etc. etc.)

As for claims by cooked-palaeodieters like Art DeVany, they should be treated with just as much suspicion as the claims made by the likes of Aajonus. What we do have as additional evidence is the fact that a large minority of people who eventually go rawpalaeo or for RVAF diets and succeed in regaining their health are people who previously tried and failed miserably healthwise on cooked-palaeodiets like DeVany’s approach(and failed on other cooked diets or the raw vegan/fruitarian diet), myself being just 1 tiny example thereof.

The only thing I will say re DeVany is that there is more emphasis on exercise in his dietary philosophy, and, while exercise is touted by many RVAFers, it should ideally be promoted to the same extent as a healthy diet, given scientific studies attesting to the high level of physical activity in palaeo times etc.
Quote
the difference for me is even though I can have some kind of pride in my particular all-raw or virtually all raw program for myself, doesn't mean I can't see the obvious superiority of other programs such as Vitalis or DeVany in creating health to vast permutations of all raw all 'paleo' diets.
Their approaches both have various stumbling blocks. Those facing the standard decline in old-age will not benefit as much from the cooked-aspect of DeVany's diet given the links made between heat-created toxins in cooke foods and age-related decline, those with some form of dairy-intolerance will not benefit much from Vitalis' recommendations to consume raw dairy etc.

Quote
You say raw vegans have to supplement to be healthy and in other threads say that supplements are useless.
Inaccurate. I said that raw vegans have to supplement in order to REMAIN healthy in the long-term, after some years of doing the diet.I also stated that going raw vegan does benefit people a lot in the short-term, health-wise, as they directly benefit from not consuming heat-created toxins from cooked foods after that point.

I  did state that I thought supplements were useless; perhaps I should have said "partially useless", though, as what I meant was that rawpalaeo foods will always be superior to supplements in the long run, but I have previously acknowledged that some unusual people with very severe vitamin-/mineral-deficiencies might be more quickly helped by taking heavy dosages of supplements in the very short-term rather than slowly building up reserves with rawpalaeo foods.  Also, while I specifically found that I didn't properly absorb the vitamin pills I used to take(I experienced frequent urination, which was a dead giveaway), I do accept that other people can absorb nutrients from supplements, albeit not as well as with rawpalaeo foods, and taking supplements after 5-10 years of being raw vegan is better than taking no supplements at all.


The only thing I will say re DeVany is that there is more emphasis on exercise in his dietary philosophy, and, while exercise is touted by many RVAFers, it should ideally be promoted to the same extent as a healthy diet, given scientific studies attesting to the high level of physical activity in palaeo times etc.



Quote
You say juice tastes bad like its some kind of law, and yet one of the main criticisms among raw vegans critical of juicing is that it is 'too sweeet' and therefore makes i easy to 'overeat' vegetables.

In my raw vegan days, there were very, very few veggie-juices which were deemed to be too sweet, mainly raw carrot-juice being singled out.
Quote
Also, its impossible to create more nutrition in a vegetable.
I actually stated that juicing shreds the cell-walls of plants, thus releasing more nutrients for consumption.
Quote
Most importantly, you You totally discount that MOST long term vegans are against the sugar in fresh modern fruits, have the lab work to back it up, and do far better on what amounts to neolithic forms of carbs, sprouting, processing and fermentation than fresh whole and raw fruit.
There are many subsets of the raw vegan movement, fruitarians being one very large subtype thereof, who definitely do NOT agree with the above claim re sugar in fruits. As for sprouts, people in palaeo times would sometimes have eaten sprouted plants, nothing neolithic or processed about that. Fermentation, such as „high-meat“ and fermentation of plant foods would have been a basic part of palaeolithic life for an obvious reason( no refrigerators at the time)? So are „palaeolithic“.

As for processing such as drying, that depends on the raw vegan, plenty are against processing fruits – certainly, there is a lot of info online re the negative effects on health of dried fruits. Some go in for highly processed stuff such as almond butter and similiar nonsense, with cooked-vegans going in for tofu etc. But those are hardly healthy, and don’t compare too well with those eating raw solid fruits. Fermentation of raw fruits is also not generally practised: well, except those wishing to make some form of alcohol therefrom , of course.




Quote

This when you acknowledge that cooked palaeos can do better according to you than raw vegans (but are still massive failures- of course!).
Not really. I have previously pointed out that raw vegans can easily do better than cooked-palaeos in the short-term, simply because they are not consuming high levels of heat-created toxins such as the cooked-palaeos are doing. The only catch with a raw vegan diet is that raw plant foods are not complete foods, so that , in the long-term, despite the fact that the body is ingenious at creating substitutes for various nutrients, a raw vegan will slowly get nutritional deficiencies. A cooked-palaeodiet, while unhealthy in that it contains a lot of heat-created toxins derived from cooking, will not have that aspect of raw veganism as animal foods are „complete foods“, providing all the nutrients the human body needs.
Quote
   
 SO obviously there is some other chain of command to raw fruits > anything not raw, and even cooked wild foods < anything raw. I believe that is where the discussion is and has nothing to do with anything else you have made it out to be.
The trouble is that you are over-simplifying things as usual. After all, the whole point of a raw, palaeolithic diet is that different (rawpalaeo) foods provide for different needs. Some people might benefit from raw, zero-carb, others from raw omnivore, I have even come across 1 or 2 people stating that they did better with far more raw plant foods in their diet than raw animal foods.

Plus, the comparison(<>) you gave above is invalid.  A fair comparison would be between raw wild game and cooked wild game, or raw fruit and cooked fruit etc., if you want to suggest that cooking is better. After all, people absorb different foods for different purposes.
"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 KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2011, 03:08:11 am »
as the same as my last response, basically none of this really addresses what I wrote. I found my last argument impossible to argue against, but here were are...

The whole point is that as long as we follow general principles re our palaeolithic ancestors we will be healthier than if we followed more modern methods such as  cooking food(cooking was only invented in the last 10 percent of the palaeo era), or juicing or rendering or drying and the like.

Plus, the comparison(<>) you gave above is invalid.  A fair comparison would be between raw wild game and cooked wild game, or raw fruit and cooked fruit etc., if you want to suggest that cooking is better. After all, people absorb different foods for different purposes.
no. unfortunately that is not the case. Even if we eat 100% the cleanest healthiest foods with the right balance of nutrtients (if anyone even does such) this isn't the case, and other tools are often necessarily.

I can think of 1000s of examples of where similarly 'processed' foods as part of an overall DIET would be superior to other diets without such things and have listed some. Thats exactly what I am saying is false. Why would I have to compare one thing to another, when methodologies will exude all kinds of such processes and believe what they are doing is therefore AUTOMATICALLY correct...no matter how equally artificial. You always want some 1:1 comparison, but you won't have it when you can't even see past such narrow perception towards such things. All the matters is how a person can get healthy or become unhealthy on certain whole APPROACHES. So discussing individual foods or processes and weighing how bad one thing is over another and all the detriments is a waste of time and will in fact leave one is the raw>anything non raw camp every time to their own loss. The only real issue here (for this thread) is whether someone can have better results emphasizing wild/indigenous foods and processes over arbitrarily eating any foods that appear to be raw fruit, animal or vegetable as I have said a few times now. If you have anything to say about that, then maybe do so, instead of your typical dissections of exercise or medicine and photoshop or other things that you can use to 'rationalize' why people do well...while neglecting the obvious holes in logic that creating health is not so simple.

And the claims re people on such rawpalaeo diets  not being able to survive and hunt in the wild while following such diets makes absolutely no sense either. Indeed the added burden of having to cook each meat-meal (for a cooked-palaeodiet) would waste a lot of time that could have been spent on hunting/foraging instead.
I'm not talking about the processes of cooking, i'm taking about physical bodies capable of taking on extremes in temperature/situation and have strength and skill. Believe it or not, some of these people will eat raw meat too, maybe even know what kind of bitter (yuck) plants to eat and even eat bugs and other dreadful things.

More to the point, we are NOT just saying that " as long as things are raw, we will be  healthy". We are stating that "as long as we are eating raw and palaeo, and not eating grainfed meats, and listening to our bodies' needs etc. etc., we will be healthier than someone eating that same type of  diet in cooked form". As for the "variety of tools to create health" comment, we RPDers all accept that some alternative non-dietary methods can help speed up health-recovery if used as well). What it boils down to is that cooking, per se, does not confer any benefits in most cases; and in the cases where it does provide benefits, those benefits are cancelled out by the other damage done by cooking that food.
who cares, you still can't say with certainty someone eating cooked healthy food will be less healthy than someone eating raw hybridized food depending on what kind of diet that person eats. So if the diet is high in modern fruits and low in other foods, it can create just as many or more problems as cooked foods even if it is not deficient in nutrients, happens all the time and doesn't matter if they are vegan or omnivorous raw, just a fundamental issue for modern humans. Even when you look at traditional peoples in the tropics, they often exclude the local fruits in favor of other foods and starches. What people like DV point out is there is a REASON for this other than the typical nonsense spewed my raw food people about pure addictions or degeneration in behavior. It has to do with HEALTH.

In my raw vegan days, there were very, very few veggie-juices which were deemed to be too sweet, mainly raw carrot-juice being singled out.
all greens other than bitter herbs will taste sweet unless there is some underlying issue. I could care less what PD people have written, may of which after all are not in good health or necessarily have been on the diet very long and have all kinds of artificial desire or habits. What you are essentially saying is the same stuff people say about grains having no flavor or coffee or tea because SOME people use flavor enhancers. The very criticism of even plant juices is too much sugar, and sugar...tastes sweet.

of course you focused on how paleo or not the practices of certain raw vegans were that exclude fruit, instead of acknowledging that the reason they do in fact process sprouts and other fermented foods is to heal the body by avoiding all kinds of naturally fermenting fruit sugars. Many believing fundamentally that modern unripe fruits are not food at all, and having the documents proving' such at least to them and shared as an idea and expeirence by many others include raw meat eaters.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #47 on: January 21, 2011, 03:51:31 am »
I'm not talking about the processes of cooking, i'm taking about physical bodies capable of taking on extremes in temperature/situation and have strength and skill.

The title of this thread is “Non-mutant fruits and vegetables”. It would be a good idea to stop flooding it with unrelated, obscure and endless arguments. 
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #48 on: January 21, 2011, 05:41:41 am »
[after relizing posts were deleted/moved to some lame thread]

wtf? I'm not voluntarily entering into your psychodrama pal. You once again offered nothing but your criticism of myself here even after I answered you politely. Where is my post of DV and wild foods? please just delete my posts if you want to abuse your impartial moderator status. no decent moderator would plug their methodologies into threads where they do not belong, particularly in MrBBQ's post who has suffered from similar dogmatic thinking. you are insensitive and unaware of anything but your ineffective world long disputed in many peoples minds long ago as naive.

"no. unfortunately that is not the case. Even if we eat 100% the cleanest healthiest foods with the right balance of nutrients (if anyone even does such) this [necessarily creating health over other systems] isn't the case, and other tools are often necessarily."

please cite how any of this is obscure or irrelevant or add any decent reply or where any of your ideas can be taken 100% seriously as all knowing in regards to which systems are unhealthy. I have massive proof as to why modern fruit eating is harmful even in comparison to cooked foods which is totally relevant and I have cited one piece of this. I already cited why referencing people who know about wild nutrition and are fit because they don't eat decimating restrictive ineffective diets and can exist in the wild on those ACTUAL foods that exist in the wild as also totally relevant. Although I guess that got lost in the 'move'.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 11:05:27 am by KD »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Non-mutant fruits and vegetables
« Reply #49 on: January 21, 2011, 07:39:58 am »
Tyler and Francois, I don't want to get into a debate on it, so I'll just report that while some elements of Instincto make sense to me, my experience doesn't exactly match yours when it comes to Instincto, so from my perspective you speak for yourselves on the topic. I think some of the more cantankerous debate could be mellowed out into more reasonable and fruitful (pardon the pun ;) ) discussion if folks frequently made it clear that they speak only for themselves.


Interesting article. In Hadzaland, tubers are a much more reliable source of carbohydrates than berries:

Quite correct, Hanna. I saw that in the article too but didn't report it because anything less than glowing reports about beloved yummy fruits tends to be met with hostility at this forum and underground storage organs seem to be poorly regarded overall here. It's refreshing to see that you haven't yet been criticized for reporting about the Hadza.

Re: USOs, I noticed that my local market has a sign for jicama, which is a USO that is edible raw, but they were out of it at the time.

It is indeed interesting that even though the Hadza prefer berries to USOs, they eat more of the latter, because it is more plentiful and available year round. This is something that some Instinctos don't appear to take fully into account, because it seems that some don't restrict themselves to seasonal foods (please correct me if I err).

Some chimps have been observed digging up shallow USOs and eating them. IIRC, Australopithecines are also believed to have eaten raw USOs. I tried raw celeriac and turnips and didn't care for them, but found that I like raw parsnips. Like the Hadza, I also like berries, raw honeycomb and meat.

Isn't it interesting that the Hadza who live near the alleged original habitat of H. sapiens sapiens reportedly prefer berries above all fruits and that fruits are apparently not available year round even in that tropical zone?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 07:48:46 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

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk