Author Topic: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat  (Read 48752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #100 on: October 19, 2011, 07:18:00 pm »
That's why every animal can be taught how to do it...
I'm sure a chimp could be taught to strike a match...
"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: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #101 on: October 19, 2011, 07:21:27 pm »
If that is so then putting study subjects on an exercise plan would cause significant long term weight loss, correct? Would you care to show me evidence of that happening?
Yep:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925949

Obviously, it's a question of activity-levels too. The activity-level of a rower of ancient triremes is way, way beyond what 99.99 percent of people do nowadays as regards daily physical activity, so that trireme-rower would find it much easier to stay slim.
"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 Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #102 on: October 20, 2011, 03:12:29 am »
"The Hadza are hunter-gatherers in Tanzania. Their diet can be conveniently categorized into five main categories: tubers, berries, meat, baobab, and honey. We showed the Hadza photos of these foods and asked them to rank them in order of preference. Honey was ranked the highest. Tubers, as expected from their low caloric value, were ranked lowest. Given that tubers are least preferred, we used kilograms of tubers arriving in camp across the year as a minimum estimate of their availability. Tubers fit the definition of fallback foods because they are the most continuously available but least preferred foods. Tubers are more often taken when berries are least available. We examined the impact of all foods by assessing variation in adult body mass index (BMI) and percent body fat (%BF) in relation to amount of foods arriving in camp. We found, controlling for region and season, women of reproductive age had a higher %BF in camps where more meat was acquired and a lower %BF where more tubers were taken. We discuss the implications of these results for the Hadza. We also discuss the importance of tubers in human evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol 140:751–758, 2009. VVC 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Natural selection should favor exploitation of low-quality foods when they minimize wasting and starvation during hard times. The term ‘‘fallback foods’’ refers to these lower quality foods that are eaten when more preferred foods are not available. "

So the fruit eaten by the Hadza as a staple food are tastier and provide more calories than cooked tubers. This is a nice argument against Wrangham´s theory - especially since nutritious and edible fruits might have been more plentiful in the paleolithic than today:

Quote
The remaining hunting, berry, tuber, and honey grounds of the Hadza are threatened by encroachment. (...)  the Datooga are clearing the Hadza lands on either side of the now fully settled valley for pasture for their goats and cattle. They hunt out the game, and the clearing destroys the berries, tubers, and honey that the Hadza rely on (...)
http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Hadza_people

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #103 on: October 20, 2011, 09:01:40 am »
Yes, and if you group the baobab fruit together with the berries, then combined fruits category becomes even more important. Plus, KD is right that not all adaptation is positive, and he wisely pointed to the giant panda example, an animal which physically degenerated from eating a diet that it was not fully adapted to and it is now nearly extinct. Despite eating its current bamboo-heavy diet for millions of years (according to scientists), it still is not fully adapted to it (again, according to scientists that study the animal).

There is another animal that is not fully adapted to its current diet and is physically degenerating as a result--modern Western human beings! So much for Wrongham's nonsense. The more I learn about his views and bogus claims and agendas, the lower my opinion goes. Unfortunately, the level of ignorance about raw animal foods is quite high and lots of people accept his claims at face value because his speculations support their own cherished views and habits. It's not just coincidence that lots of Wrongham fans happen to eat lots of cooked tubers and other cooked foods, and many are vegetarians, and they seem to be eager to find justifications for their practices.

Via my experiments, my own diet has developed into being rather similar to the Hadza diet, interestingly, which was not as a result of emulating their diet, but rather via testing various foods. However, I don't eat as much raw tubers as they do, as there's only one in the local market (jicama) and I don't care for it, nor tolerate it very well. Soaked raw sweet potato tastes pretty good to me, and I think Iguana eats it, but I'm not sure that's a good idea for me, as I seem to handle starches more poorly than most.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 09:08:53 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 Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #104 on: October 20, 2011, 10:53:53 am »
I'm sure a chimp could be taught to strike a match...

And this is or is not a measure of the intelligence they have because of their brain (which is genetically very close to ours)?

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #105 on: October 20, 2011, 10:59:13 am »
Yep:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925949

Obviously, it's a question of activity-levels too. The activity-level of a rower of ancient triremes is way, way beyond what 99.99 percent of people do nowadays as regards daily physical activity, so that trireme-rower would find it much easier to stay slim.

Right in the abstract: "CONCLUSION:

Diet associated with exercise results in significant and clinically meaningful initial weight loss. This is partially sustained after 1 y."

and in RESULTS:

"In both groups, almost half of the initial weight loss was regained after 1 y."

Also this is a study about diet + exercise interventions vs. diet without exercise interventions. I don't see in the meta-analysis a look at any study of exercise without diet interventions.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #106 on: October 20, 2011, 03:36:47 pm »
And this is or is not a measure of the intelligence they have because of their brain (which is genetically very close to ours)?
Not really. The point is that many animals have started fires by accident:-

http://dogblog.dogster.com/2010/07/15/pets-start-1000-house-fires-per-year-who-knew/
"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: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #107 on: October 20, 2011, 03:44:59 pm »
Right in the abstract: "CONCLUSION:

Diet associated with exercise results in significant and clinically meaningful initial weight loss. This is partially sustained after 1 y."

and in RESULTS:

"In both groups, almost half of the initial weight loss was regained after 1 y."

Also this is a study about diet + exercise interventions vs. diet without exercise interventions. I don't see in the meta-analysis a look at any study of exercise without diet interventions.
There are some studies done solely on exercise(eg:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11570117

).

Re the other stuff you mentioned:-  Obviously as soon as people stop exercising, they will regain weight, that's obvious, and does not contradict the study per se. My point is that if we had daily physical activity on the same level as our forefathers had centuries ago, we would be even slimmer, and it would be more difficult for us to be obese, even when on a really bad diet.
"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 Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #108 on: October 21, 2011, 09:49:15 pm »

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #109 on: October 23, 2011, 01:19:15 pm »
Not really. The point is that many animals have started fires by accident:-

http://dogblog.dogster.com/2010/07/15/pets-start-1000-house-fires-per-year-who-knew/

Are you comparing humans control of fire to cook food, create warmth and ward off predators to dogs and cats knocking over candles in houses?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #110 on: October 23, 2011, 01:43:38 pm »
Are you comparing humans control of fire to cook food, create warmth and ward off predators to dogs and cats knocking over candles in houses?
Yes. I am pointing out that inventing fire requires a great deal more intelligence than just starting a fire.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #111 on: October 24, 2011, 01:42:27 am »
Yes. I am pointing out that inventing fire requires a great deal more intelligence than just starting a fire.

So what is your point? I am saying that the ability to control fire is due to an advanced organ called the brain that is under genetic control similar to the other organs of the body. Since humans "invented" fire and have continued to come up with more applications for and better mastery of fire control I don't see how you're relating to your original point that using fire isn't an adaptive feature just like larger muscles or sharper teeth.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #112 on: October 24, 2011, 02:41:12 am »
Using fire is not the same as better teeth or muscles. Controlling fire has, by contrast, led to a huge  decrease in natural selection to the point where, arguably, there is now  an opposite, negative pressure forcing us humans to degenerate, where the weakest are also increasingly allowed to survive. That's not even taking into account the negative effects of cooked food consumption on human evolution re epigenetics and so on...
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #113 on: October 25, 2011, 01:07:48 am »
We're going to have to agree to disagree. And you can disagree with biology's definition of natural selection as well. I don't see how a real organ like the brain giving certain behaviors that confer reproductive advantage (controlling fire, using a stick to get at insects, approaching prey down wind etc) can be considered outside of natural selection. If I were you I would try and make sure that my prejudice against cooked food for my own health reasons is not clouding my thought process about things related to cooked food, such as control of fire and it's role in natural selection.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #114 on: October 25, 2011, 01:48:48 am »
 The simple fact is that human control of fire is merely an aspect of human culture/technology which has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection, merely hindering it. No one can credibly claim that control of fire aided natural selection since, obviously, control of fire led to increased warmth(and therefore reduced numbers of deaths from exposure and increased survival of the weak) as well as helping to ward off predators who would otherwise have culled the weaker members of  palaeo human tribes.  Given that fire helps those weaker to survive, in the  2 abovementioned ways,  it, overall, can give only a reproductive disadvantage, not an advantageous one.

Approaching prey downwind or getting at insects with sticks are not just a human phenomenon, despite your claim, but  found among some other wildlife. I am therefore not suggesting that it isn't natural.

"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 miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #115 on: October 25, 2011, 07:52:46 am »
'aided natural selection' what are you on about? Making fire is like making tools, making clothes, making weapons, making and setting traps, storing water in gourds, firing bows and throwing spears; as well as ability to use language, ability to trade, and to get on well with a group . People who weren't capable of doing these kinds of things would not have done very well at passing on their genes...

Tyler is talking specifically about natural selection for physical prowess.

Using fire, tools, weapons, clothes etc have allowed less physically able individuals to survive, yes... But it also favoured those who were better able to use these things - better mentally able. It was still natural selection, just for things more and more relating to the brain over the rest of the body.

Of course, civilisation allows people to survive who are neither physically nor mentally able, but that's a different matter.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 08:04:57 am by miles »
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2011, 08:21:35 am »
Just reading this interesting conversation for the first time and would like to make a comment about something from a much earlier section where Cherimoya was eating wild almonds where it was replied that:

Quote

    The wild form of domesticated almond grows in parts of the Levant; almonds must first have been taken into cultivation in this region. The fruit of the wild forms contains the glycoside amygdalin, "which becomes transformed into deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing, chewing, or any other injury to the seed."[6]

    However, domesticated almonds are not toxic
End quote

This brings up what the definition of what toxin means and how it relates to survival. Amygdalin is considered to be a cancer cure. People eat handfuls of apricot kernels (well over what is considered to be "deadly") to cure themselves of cancer. I can't remember the culture atm that eats masses of apricot kernels (highest content of amygdalin of the nuts/seeds) - but they never get cancer and people have sworn by eating apricot kernels as having cured their incurable cancers. Supposedly, the cyanide only attacks aberrant throughback (cancer) cells and not normal cells because we have some enzyme that protects us (at least according to debatable science). The other theory is that the toxic substance supercharges an immune response and makes the overall organism stronger. Supposedly you just need to increase slowly - mostly because the kernels also reduce blood pressure until your system adapts. Either way - Amygdalin can prevent and cure cancer and hence contribute to the survival of our species whether the adherents to the enzyme studies are correct or not. But....... with our big brains we also know that there are many other highly affective cures that don't come with the same risk... because our brains are apparently too small to want to explore it more - thinking that money is more important.

This brings up that there are many species that eat foods that have certain poisons and toxic substances in them because there is a greater gain from other components or qualities to the food.  Just because cooked foods still have toxins does not mean that eating them was not a greater good or that there are not ways in which we adapted that might not be evident as of yet at our level of understanding. It took them some time to discover the enzyme that made eating apricot kernels not kill people. Along with that smaller brain came many great advancements and I'm not yet totally convinced that brain size per se is conclusively a measure of greater intelligence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong as this is based only my pondering on  the incredible intelligence of some bird species with dramatically small brains for their overall size. Super tiny brains - some of the highest intelligence in the animal world. Makes one wonder? Is it just brain size or could have living so close together and cooperating in groups and using language near the water where we had to cooperate to raise the grains have had affects on our intelligence not related to diet? Might it be a leap to consider only food and brain size when considering intelligence?

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #117 on: October 25, 2011, 03:26:07 pm »
    Dorothy, you mean vitamin B17 or laetrile?

    Apricot kernels look like almonds when I crack them to eat them.

    Some of the raw vegan sites sell backs full of cracked kernels to snack on.

    Maybe it's only poison on a meat heavy diet?
   
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #118 on: October 25, 2011, 06:19:04 pm »
'aided natural selection' what are you on about? Making fire is like making tools, making clothes, making weapons, making and setting traps, storing water in gourds, firing bows and throwing spears; as well as ability to use language, ability to trade, and to get on well with a group . People who weren't capable of doing these kinds of things would not have done very well at passing on their genes...

Tyler is talking specifically about natural selection for physical prowess.

Using fire, tools, weapons, clothes etc have allowed less physically able individuals to survive, yes... But it also favoured those who were better able to use these things - better mentally able. It was still natural selection, just for things more and more relating to the brain over the rest of the body.

Of course, civilisation allows people to survive who are neither physically nor mentally able, but that's a different matter.
  No, I was not just talking about natural selection in terms of physical characteristics, but mental characteristics as well.

The above examples are dud, these days. Setting traps is a skill most people in the developed world would be hopeless at, for example. Modern technology allows one to circumvent the need to get along in a group - for example, those who have inherited wealth have no real need to "get along" with others as they can pay people to do what they want - the Internet also helps avoid interaction. Storing gourds, firing bows, throwing spears are also meaningless, nowadays. Indeed, one could argue that, even in ancient times, they did not help reproductive success. I mean, the chiefs of tribes generally did not fight or do manual labour, yet had far more wives/mistresses on average than other men, and so had more children than the latter, and were more likely to survive since they were non-combatants.

Besides, what you are talking about is technology, and to a lesser extent culture(re mention of clothes/fire/weapons etc.) which is, of course, quite separate from physical characteristics. 

Indeed, culture also ruins natural selection, just like technology. For example, all political philosophies try to socially engineer humans to be different from what they naturally are. Egalitarianism is the worst example thereof in terms of ruining natural selection, but the other ideologies all are unnatural, too. Eyeglasses, a common aspect of technology, notoriously make peoples' eyesight worse. Watching TV notoriously makes small children unable to concentrate and learn properly. And so on and so forth...

Indeed, the clincher is that modern culture/technology does not just allow those to breed who in previous times would have been far too physically and mentally unfit to breed, but it also makes it more difficult for the more intelligent to breed. It is a notorious fact that the more intelligent a person is, nowadays, the fewer children he or she will have. Education also lowers reproductive success since people , as a result, put off having children until later, plus they are more likely to have been taught about birth-control. PHDs have the least number of children, for example.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 09:04:58 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 Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #119 on: October 25, 2011, 08:50:01 pm »
   
    Apricot kernels look like almonds when I crack them to eat them.

    Some of the raw vegan sites sell backs full of cracked kernels to snack on.

    Maybe it's only poison on a meat heavy diet?
   
Google says:
 
There are two types of apricot kernels, bitter and sweet. Bitter apricot kernels naturally contain a compound called amygdalin, which has the potential to release cyanide when ingested by humans. Small amounts of cyanide are detoxified by the human body but high doses can be lethal. Alternatively, sweet apricot kernels and the fruit (flesh) of apricots do not pose a risk of adverse health effects from cyanide exposure because they contain lower levels of amygdalin.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/securit/2009-apricots-abricots/index-eng.php

We test our apricot kernels for presence of cyanide and find the presence to be consistently less than or equal to 5mg/kg (which is the limit of accuracy of the test). Hence you would have to eat at the very least 725 of our apricot kernels in a day to approach a dose which the committee currently consider the to be the (TDI) tolerable daily intake (i.e. 2 kernels a day).

http://www.fullwellmill.co.uk/health/kernels.htm

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #120 on: October 25, 2011, 11:57:52 pm »
    Dorothy, you mean vitamin B17 or laetrile?

    Apricot kernels look like almonds when I crack them to eat them.

    Some of the raw vegan sites sell backs full of cracked kernels to snack on.

    Maybe it's only poison on a meat heavy diet?
   

Hi Zi. Amydgalin I think was the name that came first if my memory serves me and then they took the element out and gave it the name of b17 to make it sound official - like it was another essential b vitamin and then when they started using it as a specific cancer treatment they started calling it laetrile. I think that was the progression - but they are all one and the same.

They do look much like almonds but have a nice amaretto flavor to them. Peach pits have even more of that nice flavor and are also high in b17. I doubt if perceived b17 risk relates to high meat diets just because raw vegans like them. Raw vegans are always looking for new food sources to supplement a narrow diet. People cure their cancers and eat masses of them whether they are on vegan diets or not.

Hi Hanna. What one has to remember is that apricot kernels have been considered a powerful cancer cure for a long time now so....... like all the other natural cancer cures great lengths are gone through to make sure that they appear to be as toxic as possible and wikipedia when it comes to alternative therapies is rarely a good source because a lot of trouble is gone through to discredit therapies there in particular.  Cancer is a major money-making business in this country. The bitter kernels are higher in b17 content so that's why people fighting cancer buy those.... but they aren't different species..... just different cultivars and growing conditions.

There is very little agreement over the toxicity of these seeds which doesn't matter anyway because it might be the toxicity itself which produces the healing! I would not suggest eating them actually. My body doesn't like them and neither does my dogs. For all I know they might be toxic, or they might not. My big point is that the component that is considered toxic by at least some people in itself might actually be helpful to the survival of entire cultures because in those cultures that eat them, no one dies of cancer, the life-expectancy is longer, and there would be more opportunities to reproduce.

Btw - there are MUCH better cures for cancer and ways to prevent cancer. I was just using apricot kernels as means to make a bigger point about toxic substances in foods, adaptation, evolution and survival of species.


Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #121 on: October 26, 2011, 12:25:44 am »
Hi Zi. Amydgalin I think was the name that came first if my memory serves me and then they took the element out and gave it the name of b17 to make it sound official - like it was another essential b vitamin and then when they started using it as a specific cancer treatment they started calling it laetrile. I think that was the progression - but they are all one and the same.

They do look much like almonds but have a nice amaretto flavor to them. Peach pits have even more of that nice flavor and are also high in b17. I doubt if perceived b17 risk relates to high meat diets just because raw vegans like them. Raw vegans are always looking for new food sources to supplement a narrow diet. People cure their cancers and eat masses of them whether they are on vegan diets or not.

    Hi Dorothy.  In my family we ate plum kernals etc, didn't 'waste' a thing.  "Didn't" is a key word there.  I've been living kind of disposably for the past fifteen years.  I hope to change that back permanently.   I remember I first heard about laetrile I think it was the early 1970's.  People were going to Mexico for the treatment.  My family has always for generations liked apricots and cracking almonds etc.  I always liked bitter flavors too, except when I'm eating raw animal foods.  I don't think eating peach flesh, that there's laetrile there.  I think eating fruit flesh necessitates having something bitter to make it balanced.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #122 on: October 26, 2011, 12:46:26 am »
    Hi Dorothy.  In my family we ate plum kernals etc, didn't 'waste' a thing.  "Didn't" is a key word there.  I've been living kind of disposably for the past fifteen years.  I hope to change that back permanently.   I remember I first heard about laetrile I think it was the early 1970's.  People were going to Mexico for the treatment.  My family has always for generations liked apricots and cracking almonds etc.  I always liked bitter flavors too, except when I'm eating raw animal foods.  I don't think eating peach flesh, that there's laetrile there.  I think eating fruit flesh necessitates having something bitter to make it balanced.

Ah - yes. Interesting point. When you eat raw flesh you don't want the bitters or the pits - but then again - eating raw flesh foods probably will also keep you from getting cancer so you don't need to. ;)

Fruits are interesting when it comes to how many of them have anti-cancer properties in them or in the seeds. It's almost like taking the cure with the poison. Cancer cells feed off of fructose but if along with the fructose are things that kill cancer cells then the fruit will not feed cancer cells and allow them to become tumors like the refined sugars and carbohydrates will. Many fruits are considered to be cancer cures as long as you eat no other processed sugars because those poor starving cancer cells that use so much sugar open up their greedy little mouths and take in what will kill them even more readily.

So when you eat an apricot or a peach, it makes a good deal of sense to me to eat that kernel that is inside and which goes so nicely with the flavor of the fruit (and also adds fats and proteins that go so well with the sugars I think too). Whether to go about eating loads of kernels without the fruit just because you can eat the nut by itself in these days of mass production (if you are not already trying to un-do a previous imbalance) is defintely questionable. The nut goes with the fruit so if you are not eating fruit (which you are right, does not contain b17) there is probably usually is little need for the lots of these nuts eaten on their own in a healthy person and that's my guess on why your body doesn't like it. But, if you are vegan that has no better source of protein and fats and eating lots of sugar that can feed cancer cells - then perhaps you might crave them more.

I am also trying my best to slowly live a life that is less "disposable". That's one of the reasons I love my chickens so much! :D

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #123 on: October 26, 2011, 09:59:08 am »
claws, teeth and large muscles function to keep otherwise weak individuals alive

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #124 on: October 26, 2011, 06:22:02 pm »
claws, teeth and large muscles function to keep otherwise weak individuals alive
  They are not weak, though. I mean, a man who is intelligent but who is short-sighted and slight in build will have no chance in an unarmed  fight against someone with large muscles, regardless of his intelligence. Only through the crutch of having extra technology such as weapons would he have a chance of winning.
"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.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk