Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dariorpl

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32
1
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: Yesterday at 12:39:15 am »
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys.

Epidemiological studies are pretty much the same as surveys.

And again, it's all from cooked dairy consumption.

By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against  asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.

No. Pottenger's studies clearly proved that raw dairy is health giving while cooked dairy harms health and causes all sorts of disease and degradation, which intensifies with each generation. You can say it's only so for cats, and not humans, but you can't say cooked and raw are the same.

Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems. 

Lol? We are talking about food consumption, not grafts and transplants.

Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because  wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.

Pretty irrelevant. But in any case, was this cooked dairy?

As for the casein and wolves milk, that's just a hypothesis with no backing. I also believe the story of children raised by wolves is likely fake, but not for that reason.

It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals.

Nobody claims that cats are humans. Pottenger certainly never did. It is interesting, however, how you bring up animal studies when they suit your biases, but discard them when they don't.

And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. "focus" is irrelevant when all the source data is coming from populations consuming cooked dairy only.

Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue. 

Are you now saying that raw dairy is worse for health than cooked dairy?

Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful  as 100% of the diet.

Not harmful, insufficient. Some people think drinking water is good for health. It would be ludicrous to propose that they show a 100% water diet is good.

Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of  a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.

The studies showed that cooked milk causes disease and degeneration while raw milk prevents disease and slowly cures it and regenerates health.

  Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats. 

Cats were not domesticated to be kept as pets. People back then were much more practical. If they kept an animal around, there was a material, tangible goal to it. The whole notion of keeping a pet for its own sake didn't develop in great numbers until the 19th century, and it didn't affect the masses until the 20th century .

   It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful.

Sure. but if the animal's health is only a little bit worse, but you get much more healthgiving milk out of it, then it could very well be worth the tradeoff.

Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection.

I didn't say its the same thing. However, there is the possibility that it's even better in some cases. For instance, do you prefer to eat wild leaves with their high toxicity, or domesticated varieties where breeding has significantly lowered the toxin loads?

It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health. 

By that definition all human activities are unnatural, including hunting wild game. It's not simply the being natural or artificial that makes something improve our health or damage it. It's a little more complicated than that.

Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health.

Again, Pottenger's studies showed that no, cooked dairy helps cause tooth decay whereas raw dairy does the opposite.

This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters  and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago.

I didn't say they ate no meats. But they ate plenty of grain. Keep in mind that the best quality meat, such as wild deer, was only for the rich.

And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.

No.


2
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:36:36 am »
Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid  scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.

They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.

Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy.

Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.

Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all.

And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?

Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class.

The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans.

How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.


The studies also  did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr.  In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.

This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.

The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.

Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.

No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.

Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans.

You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.

You probably don't even realize it, but you're actually making my point when you say cats and humans have pretty similar digestive systems.

Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed.

That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.

And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within  a 2 year period -

Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.

human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:- http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf

I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.

Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.

In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption. *sigh*

Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.

The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.

They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.

All classes, even up to  middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.

Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.

3
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:43:30 am »
There are of course many other problems with raw dairy, such as the hormone factor and the unbalanced calcium:magnesium ratio. In my own case, I found that dairy consumption greatly weakened my teeth pre-RPD diet(in fact I would have lost all my teeth in another year if I had not switched to an RPD diet), and that a diet consisting only of raw animal foods led to a sudden looseness in my teeth after just 3 weeks on it.

In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I had the same problem when consuming vasts amounts of what I thought at the time was raw dairy, but it might not have been. Some of my teeth became loose and I could move them a little. After stopping the consumption of dairy, the looseness in my teeth went away.

My teeth continued to get worse since then, on a diet of mainly meats and fruit, but the looseness hasn't returned.

I intend to try dairy again once I can find a reliable source and be certain as to the quality of it.

Another thing that might have damaged my teeth was the copious amounts of lemon juice I was consuming, sometimes up to 1 liter or more a day. Although I stopped that a while prior to stopping the dairy consumption.

4
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:34:25 am »
No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess  calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue. 

Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.

Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/


https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/

This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?

We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.

Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk.

How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.

The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.

They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.

You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.

Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume). Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.

Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible..

How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers?

No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.

The http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/  fact is that  if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones  as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.

They did. Again, Weston Price.

Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.

Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.

In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.

5
Off Topic / Re: another famous vegan youtuber stops veganism
« on: January 09, 2019, 08:31:54 pm »
The emotional reactions of intense sadness, empathy and feeling like some great injustice is being done at the sight or thought of an animal being hunted or slaughtered for food; is a mental disease / psychological disorder. From this stems vegetarianism.

Veganism is even worse, feeling the same things also at the sight or thought of a cow being milked, a bird's egg being taken, or even at extracting honey from a bee hive.

I would postulate however, that if you have one of these mental diseases, it's best if you abstain from consuming said foods until you're able to solve the issue. So it's not vegetarianism or veganism that is the mental disease, but the emotional reactions that lead you to believe that it's wrong to use animals for food.

6
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 08, 2019, 08:32:26 pm »
  The whole text was based on the dangers of excess calcium, not on the issue of raw vs pasteurised.

Precisely my point. They use problems from pasteurized dairy to attack raw dairy.

Your suggestion that raw calcium is somehow magically protected from wearing the osteoblasts out is dodgy and not yet supported by any science.

There's plenty of science supporting it. Including Pottenger's vasts studies on cats, as well as Weston Price's studies on indigenous peoples. Not to mention the simple fact that all mammals fed their raw mother's milk develop much better bone and teeth health than those fed pasteurized or cooked milks. You claim this is because it's the mothers' milk, or milk from the same species. I'm sure this has benefits. But it could just as well be the cooking of the milk that causes most of the problems.

Dead wrong. The whole point of the palaeolithic diet is that  Neolithic consumption of grains and raw dairy led to vast ill-health in humans. Bear in mind that, prior to pasteurisation, dairy was mostly drunk in raw form. Also, bear in mind that scientific evidence shows that palaeolithic-era skeletons all had much stronger bones compared to Neolithic-era skeletons, yet palaeo HGs did not consume raw dairy unlike Neolithic-era HGs. So, clearly, raw dairy consumption leads to weaker bones. Also, consumption of grains and (mostly raw) dairy led to significantly decreased average height, plus may have been responsible for the c. 10-11% drop in average human brain-size.

None of this proves that raw dairy was in any way part of the problem, that is simply an assumption you make on zero evidence. For all we know they could've been even worse off without the raw dairy and consuming more grains and cooked meats/vegetables instead.

Grains were consumed by all social classes in Neolithic times.

Hard to say if that was in fact the case. And even if it was, it might be in moderate amounts like we see in later periods.

7
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« on: January 08, 2019, 05:45:48 pm »
Oh, and here is some scientific data linking osteoporosis to dairy consumption. Note that excess calcium is blamed, so the issue of raw vs pasteurised is irrelevant here, as both contain excessive calcium:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

I wish I had  come across that study as a child. As a kid, I was force-fed grains and dairy at school, and my foolish parents believed the lies that doctors told them about dairy consumption building stronger bones. Interesting point re a lower lifespan being caused by malabsorption of galactose. So, it's not casein or lactose per se that is the real problem, it seems. There is a more severe example of this, called galactosemia, where complete inability to digest galactose means a baby so afflicted suffers severe inflammation, and, within months, brain-damage and death, if it consumes any dairy, raw or pasteurised, whether from their mother's breasts or from cows' milk or whatever.

You keep using pasteurized dairy studies to justify your bias against raw dairy. The researchers can "blame" whatever they want, that doesn't mean they're right, that's not how science works and you should know it. Even if the calcium itself is the problem, it could very well be that pasteurizing the dairy has an effect on the calcium molecules and how they're bound to other nutrients, as well as the absorption / fixing / elimination once they enter the body.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that humans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years without anyone ever blaming any diseases on them until pasteurization came along?

And before you bring up grains, it was well known that grains weren't healthy, which is why they were the food of poor people who couldn't afford more expensive foods. It's only in recent times that grains have been touted as health foods.

8
Off Topic / Re: More "natural" preservatives being sought after...
« on: January 06, 2019, 06:08:56 pm »
Here I was imagining a piece of meat covered in wheat bran lol...

They're chemically extracted, and probably about as harmful as artificial ones.

9
General Discussion / Re: Healthy budget diet?
« on: January 06, 2019, 09:34:48 am »
I suggest not using lard, it's usually refined and toxic. Margarine is even worse.

If you must cook, render your own liquid fats from meat fat, you can often get them very cheaply or even for free from a butcher.

I'd also add that I think just about any meat is better raw than cooked.

10
General Discussion / Re: Mold appearing on fresh raw meat
« on: December 31, 2018, 01:17:46 pm »
What hadezb said.

Also,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxvszzgYRjU

(sorry I couldn't find a version with better sound volume)

Molds and bacteria become particularly dangerous when they've grown in a toxic environment

11
Off Topic / Re: Medical blunder
« on: November 27, 2018, 07:57:56 pm »
I recently took a flu shot due to pressure and it was a disaster. 2 hours later, I got, for the first time in my life,  a painful UTI.

You really should've known better.

When are you finally going to admit that AV was right in most of what he said?

12
General Discussion / Re: Got food poisoning
« on: November 27, 2018, 07:23:22 am »
Toxins will often be stored in the organs when the animal is unhealhy. Particularly the liver. If I had to guess I would say the problem is that these foods likely had a high toxin load that your body did not want to handle. It could even be that the animal had just received medication of some sort prior to being slaughtered.

AV has warned that organs from conventionally raised animals will often cause these problems when raw. It's not that cooking them gets rid of the toxins though. In fact it makes it so that instead of eliminating the toxins quickly (which is what you got), they are stored in your body. But you just don't notice the reaction being as strong.

13
Primal Diet / Re: No Water
« on: November 27, 2018, 07:05:38 am »
It's true that distilled water leaches minerals. I had a  very frightening experience during my distilled-water experiments. I would drink gallons of the stuff and still feel the need to drink much more as I never ever felt sated. I've since been told that the best way to absorb water is to put a little something in it like salt or lemon etc.

All water will do this. It will not only leech minerals but all nutrients from your body. Yes, it will leech some toxins too, and that's why a little water can be a good idea. But like AV said, it's a solvent. Like soap for the inside of your body. If you go crazy with it, you'll have problems.

Distilled is just worse as it heavily leeches minerals. I'm not sure if adding back minerals chemically extracted from petroleum and the like would help. It certainly doesn't sound very natural.

14
General Discussion / Re: How to filter shower and bath water?
« on: November 27, 2018, 06:53:41 am »
AV took a different approach, at least for baths. Rather than filtering, he'd add things that would bind with the toxins and prevent them from entering your body through your skin/lungs, as well as pull toxins from your skin. He recommended using a little terramin clay and sometimes a little milk.

Most filtering would probably improve your water quality, assuming your water quality is bad (tap water). If you have decent water, some filtering methods could even add toxins.

For example, most shower-head filters designed to remove chlorine while keeping a good flow are made of heavy metals. Yes, you'll get rid of the chlorine and some other toxins, but you could be adding something even worse.

As I understand it, carbon filters restrict flow too much to be convenient for a shower-head installation.

Some of what I've read suggests that filtering should be done centrally rather than at the shower-head if you want it to be effective and safe. But of course that is more expensive, and you can't take it with you when you travel.

15
Primal Diet / Re: Did AV dye his hair?
« on: November 22, 2018, 07:06:10 pm »
Interesting stuff with the horsetail. Let us know if it works.

16
Welcoming Committee / Re: Hello! People from Austria here?
« on: November 22, 2018, 06:59:32 pm »
Another tragic story.

The worst part is that most of the time, money is not the main reason why a diet is bad.

Have you started eating more raw foods? And did anything change with your symptoms?

17
AV said supermarket muscle meat is ok. Just avoid organs and marrow and you'll be fine. And even if you don't, you'll be fine too, it just might not be pleasant.

Plenty of people in this forum have eaten supermarket meat countless times without any major problems.

Low quality meat meat is much better than no meat.

Most of the world consumes cooked supermarket meat and they're fine. The toxins don't go away just because you burn the meat. In fact the toxins become more troublesome because now you'll absorb rather than eliminate them.

Oh, and don't be so dramatic (this is likely a sign that you're in bad health), when I read the title I thought you were a woman. You're 33, your best years are just starting.

18
Science / Re: Bacteria in gut same as in brain....
« on: November 21, 2018, 06:42:50 pm »
https://imgflip.com/i/2n2ufz

Great, so all we're gonna get is mocking for someone who was decades ahead of the rest of the scientists of his time, and who was likely murdered for his contributions, but no recognition that he was on to something.

19
Science / Re: Bacteria in gut same as in brain....
« on: November 21, 2018, 01:28:12 am »
In fact AV has said for many years that the whole medical notion that healthy organs and muscle tissue are sterile and devoid of bacteria is mistaken, and that bacteria are crucial for just about every healthy process in our body

20
Science / Re: Bacteria in gut same as in brain....
« on: November 20, 2018, 08:31:41 am »
AV had been saying for many years that E.Coli and other bacteria in our intestines feed the brain.

He said high meat helped with that as well.

Some of his most extreme followers have even gotten to the point of occasional coprophagy as a means to acquire vast amounts of these brain feeding bacteria.

21
Off Topic / Re: Sprouts - a cheap and healthy way to live on a RVAF diet
« on: November 19, 2018, 10:55:43 pm »
What kind of sprouts did you eat for 6 weeks?

22
Off Topic / Re: Sprouts - a cheap and healthy way to live on a RVAF diet
« on: November 19, 2018, 09:58:56 pm »
What confuses me is that he says sprouts generate enzymes that prevent you from digesting nutrients... But fasting for 3-5 days would not kill you...

Unless he meant eating only sprouts but drinking no water either... I think this is probably what he meant.

Either way, I don't think it's meaningless that you only made it 1 day on only sprouts

When I was doing a vegan diet back in 2010, I regularly ate raw sprouts but I found I could only handle a small amount and mixed with other foods, and even then they tasted like soap.

I wouldn't necessarily put a lot of emphasis on what "sproutarians" claim, being that I know of several people who claim to live on sungazing or just air ("breatharians"). I knew one of them personally and he got very thin on his "breatharian" lifestyle. He was faking it to some of his friends and when they weren't there, he'd pig out on high calorie foods.

23
Off Topic / Re: Sprouts - a cheap and healthy way to live on a RVAF diet
« on: November 19, 2018, 07:29:05 pm »
2 years and 2 months later...

I finally found a clip where AV talks about sprouts. It was 3 to 5 days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKs1LRaW6cg

0:50 to 2:10

24
I think it's more of a process. The more heat and the longer the exposure, the less raw it is. It may also vary by the type of food.

Paleo people may have ocasionally eaten sunbaked meat, but we have no reason to assume that they would set meat out to bake in the sun on purpose.

It makes more sense to take the carcass in the shade where it's more comfortable on a hot sunny day.

25
Who do you mean with AJ? AV like Aajonus V.? If him, then he promoted Kefir and that has nothing to do with a normal grains. It´s a type of mushroom. I drank homemade kefir daily for many months from different milks, but I do think that it does not promote weight gain. More of the opposite I found.

Early on he recommended kefir, but I suspect it had more to do with the fact that kefir makes milk ferment in a way that is more palatable for most people.

Later on he said he found some non-compatible bacteria and he stopped recommending kefir fermentation of milk. He'd either suggest leaving milk out to ferment on it's own, or adding a little honey, or (and this will sound shocking for most) using a little saliva or chewed up cheese from a previous batch.

When using kefir grains, I'd always worry about them being grown in pasteurized milk. I haven't been able to find kefir grains that have been grown in only raw milk for many years.

One other advantage of the kefir is that it's a reliable fermentation method for getting rid of most of the lactose. And of course you can make kefir cheese out of it as well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk