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 - TylerDurden

Pages: 1 ... 567 568 569 570 571 [572] 573
14276
General Discussion / Re: Raw Paleo Since Weaning
« on: May 27, 2008, 04:40:00 pm »
I think being raised on a paleo diet would make most people shorter - insulin is a growth hormone, and eating high GI processed food like white bread, sugary cereals, and potato fries releases much more insulin, hence people grow taller.  This is why the latest generation is taller than their parents.  Along with all the growth hormones in milk.  If you're eating a paleo diet with no milk past weaning and all low GI foods (except fruit which still can't compete with junk food in the GI charts) then you're not going to grow as tall.  Children who were small for their age on a standard diet would probably grow taller on a paleo diet due to the high level of nutrients, and curing any health problems, and so would end up average height.  However I don't think anyone would grow "tall".  Stoneage people were around 5'5" (women) and 5'9" (men).  They were taller than the early farmers (eating wholegrains so also on low gi diets, which contained far less nutrients) but they weren't tall by modern standards. 

Didn't Weston Price discover that people on traditional diets were broader and shorter, and refined grains and sugar produced people with thinner skeletons who were taller?  The former tended to be all the same height and shape, whereas the latter were all different.  Pottenger's cats also, showed uniformity in size in the healthy group, while the unhealthy group were all different and tended to have overly long back legs. 

Loren Cordain encourages his children to eat potatoes, dried fruit and yams, so as not to disadvantage them heightwise in our modern society, even though he says high glyceamic diets in childhood also increase risk of heart disease in adulthood.

I don't know where you got this information but it's dead wrong! Here's a link showing that we've only recently regained most of the height we lost in the Neolithic, and, even then our average height is less than that of our Palaeolithic ancestors. According to this standard chart:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/2u3xhs


modern humans' average height for males is 5ft 8.6 inches, with modern women averaging 5ft 4.3 inches, with our Palaeo male ancestors averaging 5 ft 9.7 inches, and Palaeolithic women averaging 5ft 5.6 inches. This is even more impressive when you consider that the above statistics for "modern humans" refers only to the average height of US Whites in the 80s - if the average figures for modern humans also included the heights of Chinese and other shorter-than-average peoples, then the difference in height between Palaeo humans and the shorter modern humans becomes far  more impressive.

As for why we are not as short as in the Neolithic, I think that's primarily due to stuffing ourselves with nutrients, thus making it much less likely that we end up with stunted growth due to malnutrition. Now, our Palaeolithic ancestors had to constantly contend with famine conditions whenever their food-supply temporarily ran out, so, IMO, it's extremely likely that our Palaeolithic ancestors would have had an even taller average height if they had had a plentiful food-supply.

Re Weston-Price:- Quite a number of the groups he studied were actually pretty tall(eg:- the Masai). I think the only ones who were short were grain-eaters, and the like.





14277
General Discussion / Re: Salt and water retention
« on: May 27, 2008, 04:25:51 pm »
It's almost certainly due to water-retention, if it's that fast a gain.

14278
General Discussion / Re: what are you reading?
« on: May 25, 2008, 09:08:11 pm »
I seem to recall reading the ringworld series  as a child. I've also read his stories re organ-transplant etc.

My own suggestion is usually to read H G Wells' SF stories and books as he, along with Jules Verne, basically invented the whole genre of science-fiction. The only genuinely new theme in SF that H G Wells didn't invent was that of robots. Wells invented virtually every other idea in SF.

14279
General Discussion / Re: what are you reading?
« on: May 25, 2008, 05:40:47 pm »
I am rereading the Dune Series of 6 novels by Frank Herbert this summer.  I watched the Dune movie recently and I love this quote, which I don't remember from the 1st book:

"Without change, something sleeps inside us and seldom awakens.  The sleeper must awaken."
Duke Leto Atreides

Dune is one of my favourite books. I'm an SF genre fan, myself, with a near-encyclopaedic knowledge of SF short stories, and to a lesser extent, SF books, from 1900-1980.

14280
Primal Diet / Re: Raw Dairy
« on: May 25, 2008, 02:11:14 am »
In Florida, you can by raw milk for pets only and it is marked "not for human consumption."

Craig

Yes, but anyone with brains can still pretend to buy it " just for their pets", if they want to. In the UK, it's different, I gather that Northern Ireland, and definitely Scotland, forbid the sale of raw dairy but  England and Wales allow it(the trouble is that the raw-dairy-industry is unregulated so that a number of unscrupulous farmers deliberately sel lightly-pasteurised dary asbeing supposedly "raw".

14281
Journals / Re: Craig's Lab Results
« on: May 24, 2008, 10:33:17 pm »
First test at five weeks Raw Paleo zero carb
Second test at 19 weeks.
Where are these tests? - there's no link, AFAIK.  Also, title of topic should be "results" not "rusults" - thank god for a forum that finally allows one to correct spelling mistakes, after posting.

14282
General Discussion / Re: Were you sick when you started?
« on: May 24, 2008, 10:28:38 pm »
Yeah, I also came to a raw-animal-food diet due to ill-health incurred from cooked-food diets. There was no way I could even have contemplated this diet if I'd been in OK health. It was only when I started getting very painful stomach-aches and increasingly found cooked-food to be tasteless that I realised that there was no other option but a raw-omnivore(mostly carnivore) diet  once raw veganism/fruitarianism had been tried and discarded. I might, otherwise, have gone in for a raw-animal-food diet as I entered middle-age, but that's about it.


14283
General Discussion / Re: raw shellfish
« on: May 24, 2008, 05:42:31 pm »
Here's a US website offering exotic meats:-

http://www.exoticmeats.com/home.aspx

(Don't buy the kobe beef, as it's grainfed - the cows are raised in cages, forbidden to exercise, and are also fed alcohol).

Re lobsters/crabs:- I've eaten raw lobster and raw crab, before. I have to buy them live, as the fishmonger(from my local farmer's market) refuses to sell them raw and dead, only raw and live or dead and cooked.  I take them home(the claws are already held within rubber-bands), and then I stuff them into the freezer for a few hours which puts them into a state of torpor/suspended animation. I then take them out, put a meat-knife on the notch above the lobsters' head(or lengthways down the middle of the crab's shell) and then use a hammer on the knife to cut it up -  I then do the same with the claws etc.

The raw lobster and raw crab taste very good indeed - the crab I rarely get these days, as the fishmonger is reluctant to sell them live instead of cooked, but it's so cheap(c. 3 UK pounds sterlin= c.6 US dollars per crab) that it's worth it - food is more expensive in the UK than the US, so this really is a good deal, from my point of view. The lobster is worth 17 pounds.

I also buy bags of raw oysters and raw mussels, among other shellfish. I use an oyster-knife to pry open the oysters, and use a metal walnut-cracker to crack open the mussels. The raw mussels are very acidic in taste, but I rather like them, and they cost only 4 pounds(=8 US dollars) per bag of c.200 mussels, so that's well worth it.

14284
General Discussion / Re: Were you sick when you started?
« on: May 24, 2008, 05:23:33 pm »
I think about 2/3 start this diet out of necessity due to health-problems from having been on cooked-diets, and a 1/3 do it out of a desire for an alternative way of living. It's no surprise that the RAF-movement is biggest in California which seems to have a high proportion of people interested in alternative-health etc.

14285
Off Topic / Re: how do you guys feel about global future?
« on: May 24, 2008, 05:16:20 pm »
Your comments sound a bit like anarcho-primitivism to me:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism


14286
Primal Diet / Re: Raw Dairy
« on: May 24, 2008, 04:06:53 am »
AFAIK, many (though not all) US States forbid even cow-sharing agreements between customers and farmers, so just owning a cow and consuming its milk can be made illegal.

14287
Off Topic / Air-Pollution In California
« on: May 23, 2008, 08:48:05 pm »
Here's the article, a useful read for all those wishing to go and work in big cities:-

"Scientists link 24,000 deaths with air pollution in California
LOS ANGELES (Xinhua): Air pollution might be blamed for as many as 24,000 deaths annually in California, according to figures released on Thursday.

The deaths are probably due to chronic exposure to fine particulate pollution, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) which released two studies in this area.

The figure triples the previous official estimate of 8,200, the CARB said.

The revised figures are based on a review of new research across the nation, including by Los Angeles-based researchers, about the hazards posed by microscopic particles, which sink deep into the lungs.

"Our report concludes these particles are 70 percent more dangerous than previously thought, based on several major studies that have occurred in the last five years," CARB chief researcher Bart Croes said.

The studies, including one by University of Southern California tracking 23,000 people in greater Los Angeles, and another by the American Cancer Society monitoring 300,000 people across the United States, have found rates of heart attacks, strokes and other serious disease increase exponentially after exposure to even slightly higher amounts of metal or dust.

It is difficult to attribute individual deaths to particulate pollution, Croes said, adding that long-term studies that account for smoking, obesity and other risks have increasingly zeroed in on fine particulate pollution as a killer.

"There's no death certificate that says specifically someone died of air pollution, but cities with higher rates of air pollution have much greater rates of death from cardiovascular diseases," Croes said.

Californians exposed to high levels of fine particulates had their lives cut short on average by 10 years, the board staff found."


taken from:-

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200805231024.htm
 

14288
Primal Diet / Re: Aajonus Making Appearances
« on: May 23, 2008, 08:40:23 pm »
 One can reach Aajonus via optimal@earthlink.net - that way, one can get e-mail updates from him re his future appearances outside California.

14289
General Discussion / Re: Protein and fat digestion
« on: May 23, 2008, 06:12:33 pm »
How can you explain some of the trouble people are having? What about the abnormal digestion of "ecohe23" on your yahoo group? - that is worrying.

I would love to believe you - as I said; I don't need salt for tast, I am just in a darn  :( >:( ??? :-\ about protein and fat digestion - which begins with our stomach acid, which the body must be able to produce so that we don't have putrefaction (with undigested food...) and many other "abnormal" signals.

Amen.

I believe ecohe has unique health-issues re histamine, among other details. In my own case, I've already long since recovered from past ill-health on cooked-food diets, so I'm not really bothered about  issues like salt etc. My only concern is to get hold of plenty of raw wild meats, raw seafood etc., and that's all I need.

14290
General Discussion / Re: Protein and fat digestion
« on: May 23, 2008, 04:46:06 pm »
I agree re salt being useless. But, actually, the argument re needing salt for vegetables is absurd. The main use of salt, throughout history, has been to preserve raw meats, something that was essential in eras before fridges were invented. Salt has also been particularly useful as regards covering up the lack of taste of cooked-foods in general, especially cooked meats, which is why salt was used so much when cooking foods. Once you go raw, salt becomes unnecessary.

14291
Welcoming Committee / Re: Hi All
« on: May 23, 2008, 04:40:25 pm »
There's a lot of debate about salt.  It's documented that many Indian tribes - especially in South America - would make regular trips to the ocean to get salt.  The traditional Inuits also prepared their meals with, and drank brackish water which contains a low concentration of salt.  Most of the African tribes consume large amounts of blood as a staple which contains most of the salt in an animal's body.

Our modern meat processing plants remove the animal's blood so we lose that source of salt.  I'm also not so sure that paleo humans didn't consume salt if it was available.  Almost all animals will use a saltlick, or lick salt rich soil if it is available.  It appears that we need at least some source of sodium chloride in our diets.

Compared to most people I don't get much salt.  Based on what I add, it's only about 1 1/2 to 2 grams per day.

Lex

I've come across some mentions of animals seeking out salt-licks, but these were all herbivores, without exception.

14292
General Discussion / Re: Protein and fat digestion
« on: May 22, 2008, 07:51:06 pm »
Well I don't know, wouldn't you worry if raw meat gave you loose stooles and little bits of undigested fat? Barry also mentioned that salt is needed with raw meat because it is not fresh kill with lots of blood. Of course Barry's digestion is perfect eating cooked meat - but then again what is perfect?

Lex mentioned:
I've found that adding just a bit of salt is important or I start to get leg cramps and other strange symptoms.  I usually add about 1/2 to 1 teaspoon (3g-5g) of salt to 4 lbs (2kg) of my normal meat mixture.

His meat is quite bloody. I don't know what I am missing - but why are some adding salt and others not - some having normal stools and some not - some have other strange symptoms and some not? How do we know that what we think is the way things are - perhaps many are have putrefying (salt has to do with stomach acid and other parts of digestion) digestion and don't know!

Why is your digestion perfect ???? Why is AV against salt? Why does he recommend grain fed meat? I don't get the storey!

I did try, for the first time to eat all my beef (I have never been able to - I always chewed and spat out every mouth full) because I was eating a little salt. Yesterday I had some mutton leg and this was so tough I just could not deel with it (this mutton must have been as old as the hills) - that was not a very pleasing meal >:(.

Nicola

Nicola


Most peoples' digestion is perfect on a raw-animal-food diet unless their digestion is somehow permanently damaged from years of eating cooked-foods - I'm not therefore the exception but the rule. I had horrible digestion with cooked-animal food, pre-raw diet, despite having lots of salt in my food at the time, so I know that salt isn't needed.

As for AV recommending grainfed meat, he's sorely misguided. Not only is the vast majority of grainfed meat raised intensively in factory-farm conditions, but even organic, grainfed meat is bad for you(by comparison to grassfed).  I think the reason why he doesn't recommend grassfed is possibly because some Primal dieters find it too difficult to get hold of grassfed meat, so he allows grainfed meat as well. Plus, Aajonus seems to be more focused on the benefits of raw animal fat, and considers it superior, even if grainfed, to cooked animal fat. However, based on mine and others' experience, I think it's obvious  that high-quality nutrients (from grassfed animals) are just as important as the issue of whether a meat is raw or cooked.


14293
General Discussion / Re: Protein and fat digestion
« on: May 22, 2008, 04:51:40 am »
Don't worry about it , Nicola! As barry mentioned, there's plenty of salts in raw meats.

14294
Display Your Culinary Creations / Re: Kimchi
« on: May 22, 2008, 04:49:46 am »
The pic definitely looks very tasty! I normally hate doing any recipes, preferring mono-eating, but this sort of thing is quite interesting. Plus, it's more in tune with the views held by non-raiwsts - at least, I'm sure that non-rawists wouldn't be disgusted by the above.

14295
Primal Diet / Re: Raw Dairy
« on: May 22, 2008, 01:30:37 am »
This is a good website for finding info on local raw-dairy sources:-

http://www.realmilk.com/where2.html

14296
Display Your Culinary Creations / Re: Is it Sushi or Sashimi?
« on: May 21, 2008, 04:28:11 pm »
Sashimi isn't wrapped in seaweed, but I think that you can sometimes get seaweed as a sort of salad with the raw fish(but separate on the plate).

14297
Info / News Items / Announcements / Palaeo articles
« on: May 19, 2008, 06:42:32 pm »
Here are some articles by the author Ron Hoggan on the negative effects of grain- and dairy-consumption(all from a cooked-palaeo perspectiv):-

http://www.gluten-free.org/hoggan/

14298
There is one pretty interesting website about raw meat eating and bodybuilding,

http://www.paullundkvist.com/


Thanks! I'll post a link to this blog in the relevant section elsewhere on this site.

14299
Welcoming Committee / Re: Hi All
« on: May 15, 2008, 05:15:49 pm »
Lex, it would be useful if you posted some of the files here which you've already posted on rawpaleodiet.

14300
I might as well post the Splendid Specimens article here for any newbies. It is a seminal piece, after all:-

http://www.westonaprice.org/men/splendidspecimens.html

Pages: 1 ... 567 568 569 570 571 [572] 573