Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
51
Primal Diet / Re: A1 versus A2 dairy, any difference?
« Last post by norawnofun on January 11, 2019, 06:52:30 pm »
When I am abroad I have a liter of cow with each meal, 2-3 times a day, because I have access to it and its cheap.. When I am at home I have a big glass of goat with every meal, 2-3 times a day. There is 1 main reasons why I consume so much dairy, because it aids digestion, clabbered is best. The higher fat content the better, so I prefer cow than goat. But at home I can´t get organic cow, so I stick to the watery goat. Also the goat is super expensive and sourcing, regardless of what type of raw dairy is mostly a pain in the a. Especially if you are out and about. Meat u get everywhere. And if I don´t get raw, I need to stick to pasteurized, which messes up my teeth. Goat doesnt really have the ability to increase my weight, but cow does. So yes, another reason why I consume dairy is because I can gain weight. And as you said, dependancy is a big problem.

The ideal case is that I can eat more fatty cuts of meat, but the problem is I can´t digest them yet, as my stomach acid is still not strong enough, plus I need a ratio of about 60 fat to 40 protein or more, otherwise digestion is bad. Ideally I would eat cheap fatty cuts, or osso buco which has the bone marrow included, together with some lard or tallow. Raw fat is too hard to digest and where I live there are no healthy animals around. So the only way would be the osso and the fatty cuts, or homemade bacon in extra fat. I´d like to phase out dairy a bit, by eating less dairy but with higher fat content, like butter.

How did you achieve turning away from dairy and how did your body take it? You just stopped all of a sudden? And how was your digestion? Sabertooth said to go on a 2 day water fast to possibly reset the microbiome. Did you do something like that?
52
Primal Diet / Re: A1 versus A2 dairy, any difference?
« Last post by van on January 11, 2019, 10:57:12 am »
 I became so dependant on it that I simply made a choice.     I read one of your last posts where you wrote ( think it was you ) that you have  a liter with each meal.  that seems like a lot to consume when eating meat.  As in, I would Guess, that the meat would simply swim in all that milk and not fully digest.  You might want to confirm it really is working for you,  but then maybe if it's really clabored it would work.     My guess is that you're consuming that much to keep weight on?
53
Primal Diet / Re: A1 versus A2 dairy, any difference?
« Last post by norawnofun on January 11, 2019, 04:52:03 am »
@van How did you manage to steer away from dairy? I´d like to try it but it seems very hard.
54
Welcoming Committee / Greetings from Norway
« Last post by Borge on January 10, 2019, 04:40:04 pm »
Dear all

I am a 63 year old man from Stavanger in Norway.
I had been on low carb diet for about 2 years.
I started eating raw meat a week ago, feel well.

Greetings from Borge
55
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by dariorpl 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.
57
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by TylerDurden on January 10, 2019, 03:21:02 am »
By "looseness" I mean, my teeth were on the verge of falling off. Indeed, as I switched to eating raw meat, the raw meat hurt my teeth so badly that I was forced to age the meat a few days. I also had to cut the raw meat into tiny slices and just swallow without chewing.

I do accept that some people thrive on raw dairy. it is just that there are a lot of people who do better without it.
58
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by TylerDurden on January 10, 2019, 03:14:03 am »
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy. Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all. Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.
Quote
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.
The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans. Cats may be mammals but do not have much in common with humans. 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.
Quote
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)
  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.
Quote
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.
Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans. 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. 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 - 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
Quote
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? 
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.
Quote
No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.

They did. Again, Weston Price.
*sigh* 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.
Quote
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.
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.
59
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by dariorpl 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.
60
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by dariorpl 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.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk