Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet => Topic started by: zeno on January 22, 2012, 01:49:49 pm
-
I would like for the members of this community to expound upon the theoretical and practical concerns of consuming raw dairy. It seems that raw dairy should be a celebrated food in a raw food circle such as this. Is it because dairy is only available through the domestication of animals? Or is it because humans are the only animals to consume milk (and of another species) into adult hood?
The reason I ask is because I definitely benefited on a diet of solely milk and enjoy milk but don't understand why some people celebrate abstaining from dairy or don't condone consuming raw dairy.
-
I cannot digest milk properly. This includes cow's milk, goat's milk and fermented products from these two animals. It's really not a matter of being anti-dairy. No celebration here; I just don't drink it. Also, I look askance at those who tout milk as the universal snake oil and attribute dairy-intolerant symptoms to detoxification. What's their beef with people who can't tolerate dairy?
-
I think people don't condone the idea that AV and others claimed that as long as milk was raw it was suitable to eat for everyone as the basis for a natural diet. Which is a totally legitimate skeptical place to be.
Some people actually believe that other nonsense about what 'all animals do' or that the entire world would be better off if we all wore short-pants made out of shells and never figured out how to do anything of any significance.
---
I really dont know if milk or other dairy products are completely healthy. I do know that adult humans can generally live off milk longer than on water, single fruits or lean meat which indeed proves without question that maturation of an organism has nothing to do with the ability to absorb a wide spectrum of nutrients from milk. Also that it ironically exists as one of the only natural 'whole foods' found in nature next to fruit and the animals which can be eaten whole and not bought in foam containers.
If milk is detrimental (which is possible) people need to find direct links of problems in traditional people's that consumed dairy, not combine a bunch of backward ideals with experiences of modern people seeking health, who may have had multiple fixable problems in consuming dairy foods. Which is not all AV hocus but also noted by other researchers as being hormone and health related in terms of ability to process dairy. Meaning that these underlying issues do not necessarily get better sans dairy consumption.
-
If one struggles to think about it honestly, actual physical recordable presence of a lactase enzyme in a modern person when there once was none + improved blood/hormone profile and overall health ( in 1/100 of a lifetime) = bodes poorly that adaptation to dairy is some kind of mutagenic allowed eventual destruction that tricks your body (like the cooking of da food!) into thinking it is good right now ...nor that it "never happened" for humans in 10s of thousands of years times that.
But I'm not quite sure if crystal meth or other human concoctions would have similar results.
-
You'll have to forgive KD. Judging from the above remarks, he is clearly a deluded, religiously devout believer in the "Noble Savage" theory. This theory insists, blindly(with very poor, highly biased evidence), that hunter-gatherers were supposedly icons of physical and spiritual perfection exhibiting perfect health(lol), and that "therefore" we should adopt all or most of those hunter-gatherer practices. These Noble-Savage-adherents never once consider that HGs(Hunter-Gatherers) practised numerous customs which were either useless or harmful to humans such as cannibalism( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)) ) or male circumcision.
All people can correctly state about HGs is that their diets were (often, though not always) "less worse" than modern diets and that their levels of daily exercise was also greater, thus meaning that they were healthier than modern SAD/SMD eaters. That's all. HGs routinely cooked their foods so would have been taking in plenty of heat-created toxins, which have been scientifically verified as causing harm to human health. While, admittedly, exercising and fasting have been shown to reduce the levels of one type of heat-created toxin(ie advanced glycation end products), that does NOT mean that HGs were somehow magically "immune" to the effects of heat-created toxins derived from cooking.
Here's a good debunking of the widely-discredited Noble-Savage theory in general:-
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html)
http://snarkypenguin.blogspot.com/2007/04/myth-of-noble-savage.html (http://snarkypenguin.blogspot.com/2007/04/myth-of-noble-savage.html)
Back to dairy:-
The main problem with dairy is that 75% of the world's population are lactose-intolerant. Now, people claim that some of those report having no issues with raw dairy. I suspect this is inaccurate. I have often come across people who claimed that they did fine on raw dairy for a years, before finally admitting that raw-dairy-consumption affected their health slightly negatively in some way. So I reckon that minority still have problems but they are merely significantly reduced.
There are all sorts of old-wives' tales about putting raw honey in the raw milk or consuming raw dairy at room-temperature etc., but most of those don't work, and the one or two that do only improve things for a small segment of those who do badly on dairy.
Then there are those who are casein-intolerant. Simply put, cows' milk has way more casein in it than human milk and a wholly different profile. It also has some nasty hormones which harm human health. Then there's the issue of the excess calcium in it. If too much calcium is absorbed into the body and not enough magnesium(easily achieved on a diet high in raw dairy) then, over time, magnesium-uptake into the body gets blocked, and magnesium-deficiency results. Which is why some long-term Primal Dieters admitted, on the Primal Diet yahoo group, that they ate magnesium-rich raw pumpkin seeds to compensate for this potential problem.
Beyondveg.com talks about how the adaptation to dairy is not really genetic in origin, thus debunking KD's erroneous assumption re dairy in his last post:-
"Incompatibilities between dairy
consumption and human physiology
*** "...for our purposes here, the example [of lactose tolerance having developed within 1,150 years in some segments of the population] does powerfully illustrate that genetic adaptations for digestive changes can take place with much more rapidity than was perhaps previously thought."
The estimate of 1,150 years is from the Cavalli-Sforza data. A somewhat more conservative estimate based on the prevalence of lactose tolerance in those of Northern European extraction is that the gene for adult lactose tolerance would have increased from 5% to 70% prevalence within about 5,000 years (approx. 250 generations). [Aoki 1991]
Genetic changes due to "neoteny" (such as adult lactose tolerance) not indicative of overall rates of adaptation. Even while these data for relatively quick evolutionary changes resulting in adult lactase production remain essentially true, however, an important point that should be clarified is that the gene for lactase production is already present and expressed in all humans (for breastfeeding) up through the time of weaning. Therefore, for lactase production to continue into adulthood would require only relatively small changes in the gene, e.g., via the process known as "neotenization" (the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood). Thus, "brand-new" traits, so to speak, unlike polymorphisms such as the gene for lactase production which already exist (even if not in a form previously expressed in adults) would take much longer to evolve.
Additional indications of incongruence between dairy and human physiology. Further, beyond the question of lactose tolerance, I have since learned there would be many additional genetic changes required (than just that for lactose tolerance) to result in more complete adaptation to milk consumption. A number of recent studies demonstrate problems of milk consumption that go considerably beyond whether or not a person is capable of handling lactose:
* Lactose and heart disease. One is that lactose itself is a risk factor for heart disease, since in appreciable quantities it induces copper deficiency which, in turn, can lead through additional mechanisms to heart pathologies and mortality as observed in lab animals.
* Poor Ca:Mg ratio which can skew overall dietary ratio. Another problem is the calcium-to-magnesium ratio of dairy products of approximately 12:1, which is directly at odds with the ratio of 1:1 from a Paleolithic diet composed of meats, fruits, and vegetables. Depending on the amount of milk in the diet, the resulting overall dietary ratio can go as high as 4 or 5:1. This high ratio leads to reduced magnesium stores, which have the additional ramification of increasing the risk of coronary heart disease, since magnesium helps to lower levels of blood lipids (cholesterol), lower the potential for cardiac arrthymias, lower the oxidation of LDL and VLDL cholesterol (oxidation of cholesterol has been linked to atherosclerosis), and prevent hyperinsulinism. (More about hyperinsulinism shortly below.)
* Saturated fat. Milk has also been linked to coronary heart disease because of its very high saturated fat content.
* Molecular mimicry/autoimmune response issues. Additionally, autoimmune responses are being increasingly recognized as a factor in the development of atherosclerosis. In relation to this, research has shown milk to cause exceptionally high production of certain antibodies which cross-react with some of the body's own tissues (an autoimmune response), specifically an immune response directed against the lining of the blood vessels. This process is thought to lead to atherosclerotic lesions, the first step that paves the way for consequent buildup of plaque.
[See Part 2 of Loren Cordain, Ph.D.'s posting of 10/9/97 to the PALEODIET list (relayed to the list and posted by Dean Esmay) for details and references relating to the above points about dairy consumption.]"
As you can see from the above, lactose causes copper deficiency, thus leading to heart-disease. The saturated fat claim, however, is clearly only an issue with pasteurised dairy, not raw dairy.
And milk is certainly NOT "found in Nature", it is something that requires domestication of an animal to be eaten regularly.
-
I would like for the members of this community to expound upon the theoretical and practical concerns of consuming raw dairy. It seems that raw dairy should be a celebrated food in a raw food circle such as this. Is it because dairy is only available through the domestication of animals? Or is it because humans are the only animals to consume milk (and of another species) into adult hood?
The reason I ask is because I definitely benefited on a diet of solely milk and enjoy milk but don't understand why some people celebrate abstaining from dairy or don't condone consuming raw dairy.
Know when to use raw dairy.
I am incompatible with raw dairy. I experimented many times. I just can't digest it without my body resorting to intense gas formation.
My 10 year old son benefited with a short stint on raw dairy for a few weeks to help heal his intestines. After that he just went downhill with constipation and mucus formation. End of dairy. But his intestines and pooping to color brown normal were helped.
-
What I'm curious about is whether those ethnic populations which do best(eg:- Scandinavians) or worst(eg:- Orientals) on pasteurised dairy, also are the best or worst as regards raw dairy, as well. It would make sense.
-
It is getting difficult to find people who are of one race or area of the world.
I know that TD has developed the art of milk trashing to a science where he can spout it out for pages where this percentage and that percentage will die if they consume it..... LOL....
Then there are those who think as Tyler has pointed out, that if they get sick, it is not the milk, but a downloading of toxins. Untrue.
However, my training and experience is that all foods will adversely affect someone, somewhere. That does not mean that one can make up blanket statements about celebrating this food or that food. Dairy is a food. Some can tolerate it some cannot. It is difficult to digest. In Ayurveda it is considered to contain a lot of air, so some people will get gas or bloating issues. I do fine on raw dairy, but have serious issues with pasteurized.
There will always be theories and unquestionably, if you were in a situation where dairy was a staple part of your diet say in your tribe, then you would adapt or starve or find an alternative.
Nowadays we can go to the grocery and pick up food from everywhere in the world, so suddenly we can have these theoretical discussions about this food vs that food.
Reality is that there are people in the world who lived and whose ancestors have lived on a very few food types, with no difficulty.
Theories are fun, when you are not hungry.
-
I wasn't remotely suggesting that everyone dies from consuming raw dairy products. (Though it is scientific fact that those people suffering from galactosemia do indeed die after consuming dairy for any sizeable length of time, with less serious problems appearing quickly soon after consuming the stuff).
As regards tribes eating raw dairy, again, as Cordain points out we humans will need a considerably longer period in order to eventually evolve to handle non-lactose-related problems with raw dairy. Even, lactose-tolerance is a dodgy issue, since many people gradually lose their lactose-tolerance as they get older, due to not producing the right enzyme in sufficient quantities any more.
My only issue with raw dairy is that it is the one raw food most commonly complained about by RVAFers(it's no coincidence that allergies to pasteurised dairy are the most commonly reported ones, too). So, I think it's reasonable to warn newbies about all the various possible negative effects that can occur in individuals from raw dairy, just in case.
-
I wasn't remotely suggesting that everyone dies from consuming raw dairy products. ...
Now come on....... you get so serious! I was just kidding.
I have read the stories of people saying that humans shouldn't consume dairy as it is intended as food for baby cattle or goats etc.
This logic is reminiscent of the "we shouldn't be eating meat because we don't have pointy teeth, strong digestive juices and short intestinal tracts like wolves" theory of the world.
The people who say this second theory forget that we don't have seven stomachs and even seven stomachs are no good for grain. OK we don't have gullets for grinding the grain so we shouldn't eat grain........ and on they go.
You could keep these evolutionary arguments going for longer than it takes to evolve such a change.
Indeed there is no proof of evolution being right or wrong, despite Richard Dawkins insistance of it's factuality, because it is just like creationism and every other theory, a theory. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
A real scientist (unlike R. Dawkins) gives both sides of an argument their due. He dismisses every argument as being preposterous, anti-scientific etc. that is not 100% in agreement with his conclusion which he started out with.
Quote from Tyler:
"The main problem with dairy is that 75% of the world's population are lactose-intolerant. Now, people claim that some of those report having no issues with raw dairy. I suspect this is inaccurate. I have often come across people who claimed that they did fine on raw dairy for a years, before finally admitting that raw-dairy-consumption affected their health slightly negatively in some way. So I reckon that minority still have problems but they are merely significantly reduced."
Tyler,
You can suspect all you want, I and my GF do fine on raw dairy and have for years.
Pasteurized caused me issues.
I cannot comment on others experience any more than you can. Your comments come dangerously close to sounding like Aajonus when he insists that everyone can consume dairy if they just "try hard enough".
Present your case but stay away from conspiracy theories. Like the implication that people have been lying all along that dairy is fine for them till they "finally admit", like a dairy consumer is some kind of underground pervert that shoots it up with dirty needles. They make you sound like the mercury conspiracy theorists.
Dairy is fine for some and not fine for some others and there are various gradations of grey in between.
You probably don't realize that what you are saying "reads" a bit extreme at times on certain subjects. No doubt we all do at times. ;D ;D ;)
-
The argument you make re more people intermixing may be right in some respects but not in others(some areas have less intermixture) but that actually makes your argument much, much weaker, since most people in the world are lactose-intolerant or have some other problem with dairy and so therefore, the minority who do fine with dairy, through intermixture with the majority will gain much less adaptability to dairy while the majority of dairy-allergic peoples would only benefit slightly from intermixture with the minority who do well on dairy, given the numbers of people involved. I hope you can see the logic re this.... ;)
Your other logic is also somewhat fallacious. For example, there are some excellent arguments for why we should be eating meats. For example, we may not have as strong stomach acids as wolves etc., but we have a longer digestive tract than carnivores to compensate for that. Similiar arguments have been used to debunk the pro-vegan line quite sufficiently.
As regards dairy, like I said it is designed to get calves to reach adult size. The opioids in dairy allow calves to be sedated so that they are less trouble for the mother to care for etc.
Re comment:- ". Like the implication that people have been lying all along that dairy is fine for them till they "finally admit", like a dairy consumer is some kind of underground pervert that shoots it up with dirty needles."
The above point is very valid since many people were so fooled by Aajonus/WAPF's bullshit fanatical advice re raw dairy that they went on far longer on the stuff than they would otherwise have done. The fact is that the pro-raw-dairy-movement is very cult-like, and the fact that raw dairy has addictive opioids in it is very noteworthy.
Whatever the case, I haven't been stating absolutes. I have stated that some people do fine on both pasteurised dairy and raw dairy. As regards those who do fine on raw dairy but not pasteurised dairy, I accept that some are like that, too. But I am also aware, from past accounts on this and other forums, that there is a segment of those, who eventually report having minor issues with raw dairy after all, after some years consuming it. After all, there are plenty of people who, like me, are not able to detect allergical symptoms if they don't appear immediately after consuming the allergenic food, especially if the symptoms are very minor.
-
hmm yeah, I do have a poor habit of pointing out that whether we are talking hgs or athletes or movie stars stars that people's health is NOT determined by the current ammount of neolthic food or heat-created-toxins in their diet, but a number of far more improtant factors.
Somehow it is offered up that you can actually prove these people are not healthy by suggesting these things MUST contribute to poor health in the ways a few people self defines it, and i'm always foolishly asking for evidence that shows these (modern or ancient) people have any actual health issues due to these practices. Anyway, I think more accurately, what I have suggested is that even if diet is the MAIN factor that we need to critcise how these diets people construct with modem food (even raw) are healthier than other diets, with an assumption on my part that most of these other blanket ideas about what is healthy , obstruct people from actually constructing a healthy diet that has anything to do with how anyone ever ate in nature.
I don't even care about dairy really. The issue that people want to suggest is absolute: that there is no way we can improve on our diet over the centuries is a unscientific (as in - not sanctioned by most scientists), unreaslistic philosophy illustrated very well with dairy adaption among other things. As well as the the data suggesting the correlation of unhealthy people with" lactose intolerance" (which almost always is not actually lactose intolerance) to be absolute, and not in any way the opposite. As these things are linked to healthy hormone and enzyme levels all around and improve together with health.
I think what I have implied in the bulk of my posts here actually is that hg emulation ( paleo OR modern) will likely yield way worse results for a modern person than EITHER group. Their conditions and others factors are indeed huge bringers of health that we can not retrive or micmic unfortunately and thus even if either diet was perfect, people need to do EXTRA things than what was done in the past, not mimic or remove bad habits or make assumptions that things that don't even stack up are adequate, like is constantly being suggested. If people want to prove those things they promote are "good enough" or have the gall to present themselves as healthier than HGs, they - in my book - do indeed need to prove it with actual measurable results, not suggestions that HGs 'had to be unhealthy' because they did what such truly little evidence suggests is unhealthy.
-
so yeah, the point in bringing up HGs in this context is to say that whether or not raw dairy did have measurable problems IN REAL PEOPLE as more relevant than anecdotes about unhealty modern people (all with issues - by definition in raw circles) or used in improper human studies or in rats.
For some reason this is not ok to state this, but it is somehow OK to remark about all the peoples who do not do dairy and still have "strong bones" etc... Again, no one actually looks at whatver other things these people are actually doing (like cooking alot of food that has calcium) or recommending actually doing ANY of the things we know or don't know that create proper calcium and other nutrients when not actually consuming dairy foods. These multiple needs of calcium alone (nevermind K) which has indeed been suggested by some experts as best at the level which the Masai got for optimal health, and not just a bunch of folks like Aajonus. Real science that would recomend people to eat eggshells every day or lbs of dark greens every day when not eating dairy. But of course there is science 'debunking' this and that is the sole truth to pay attention to. Also of course every diet of store bought muscle meat and fruit with no sat fats or dairy or organs must be ok for K and calcium as long as it doesn't contain neolithic food and surely is better at least than any possible diet that contains neolithic food.
---
basically any agreement that some people "thrive on the stuff" is clearly an empty gesture, as if it was even remotely possible that some people actually did better (with no consequences) with dairy over a identical "paleo" diet without dairy, it would be totally transparent that it really doesn't matter if food existed 200,000 years or not whatsoever. And that would also create an environment with no automatic assumptions that state people don't adapt to cooked food or dairy and we would have to just get on with mentioning aspects of eating raw food which are real and honest.
-
The BIG problem with your claims is that we have real scientific evidence that HGs were unhealthy or had signs of ill-health. There was that Mann study on the atherosclerotic aspects of the Maasai, for example, which I showed a long while back. Then I previously cited another source stating that the Maori were somewhat unhealthy prior to the advent of the white colonists etc.
We had scientific evidence showing that Bantu women had strong bones despite eating a low-calcium diet. There are also studies linking high-calcium consumption via dairy to high rates of osteoporosis. And, yes, the studies were examining as to whether there were other sources of calcium. In the case of the Bantu study, they cited specific ranges of figures for their average daily calcium-intake. So, that is incorrect.
As regards lactose-intolerance, again, people do often start to lose their ability to handle lactose due to producing ever lower amounts of the relevant enzyme over the years. Nothing to do with health.
-
Calcium is not really that important, beyond a certain point. The groups that Dr. Price studied were eating more magnesium than calcium, in pretty much every case. Excess calcium is actually implicated in heart disease.
-
Re: calcium, it is just one minor example. I really dont think anyone truly knows about these levels but the problem I see is assuming that if we don't do X than we have our bases covered for any number of things. That we can quote certain people (and not others) and not take into account whatever practices they actually were doing and just assume because they didn't do X that anything we can come up with that is 'more pure' is surely better.
Whatever the amount of calcium is needed, we need enough. There are indeed arguments among experts for both high and low levels of calcium, so neither one truly has authority there - is the point. From what I've read, its possibly correct that calcium doesn't play the role we think in bones per se, but the unfortunate thing is it plays a role in quite a alot of other areas. google: "calcium organ calcification" to find info how low calcium can actually cause tissues to calcify despite the 'alt' claims. Just another hypothesis (not fact), that may be reason to not unilaterally slam the possible need for calcium/neolithic food where we arn't getting these things other ways. Defaulting back to what was possibly doable, without actually being honest to what people did or what health they truly had..as being akin to glamorizing more current HGs, was more the point than "we should eat dairy for calcium" - of which I don't know is true and can easily believe is false.
---
I'm on board with saying HGs weren't at some peak of health, but really the 99% of people that actually share your opinion are not at all the paleo community who rationalizes not drinking milk and loves saturated oils, but those who think these groups are incredibly backward and "In The Dark Ages", NOT for the minimal amount of cooking and processing and "neolithic" activities. My point generally is at least HGs could exist and reproduce on their diet in nature without modern convenience. I often use myself as an example of some person who even with my 100% raw food delivered to me on a platter, that I could not likely live where I am living outside year-round without succumbing to some likely decrease in my health that would slowly (or quickly) become unsustainable.
-
KD - your posts are delicious - but hard to get at sometimes - like a really good nut! ;D
Here's the paragraph where I think is your most salient point comes through the best. It speaks to the broader factors of health that often are overlooked:
"I think what I have implied in the bulk of my posts here actually is that hg emulation ( paleo OR modern) will likely yield way worse results for a modern person than EITHER group. Their conditions and others factors are indeed huge bringers of health that we can not retrive or micmic unfortunately and thus even if either diet was perfect, people need to do EXTRA things than what was done in the past, not mimic or remove bad habits or make assumptions that things that don't even stack up are adequate, like is constantly being suggested. If people want to prove those things they promote are "good enough" or have the gall to present themselves as healthier than HGs, they - in my book - do indeed need to prove it with actual measurable results, not suggestions that HGs 'had to be unhealthy' because they did what such truly little evidence suggests is unhealthy."
Then at the end of your most recent post you talk about how even with all your raw foods delivered you couldn't survive outside like HG's did.
Would you please go into more depth on what you think might be the other factors involved if you have given them some thought - even if just imaginings and flights of fancy?
Basically what your writing left me with is a reminder that I am a moderner, with a different lifestyle, genetically different and barraged with totally new challenges and a different set of supports. I would like to think more on what those supports could be.
Thank you KD.
-
Well the main thing I think is clear is that within the same thread of me just suggesting we look at real people in regards to the real ill effects of dairy and others saying this is irrelevant or romantic that we have whatever other traditional people are ok to cite and which are not. We also have whatever bits we choose to approve of in W.A.P, which 'experts' are right or wrong etc...without ever truly acknowledging that any amount of adaptation equated with healthy people is in fact devastating to this idea that we are only suited to certain foods prior to whatever date is currently popular. With negative anecdotal experience being far less meaningful.
As for the other thing, it deserves it's own topic. It really is an issue of dismissal of modern convenience buttressing 'paleo' even as the whole argument over dairy is predicated on how we cannot improve upon nature. even when milk is simply something people figured out how to obtain through pretty minimal intervention as far as tech goes. Interventions no greater than those that make raw eating today sustainable year round anyway.
Milk has indeed been on the planet since before humans and primates and is literally one of the ONLY foods designed to be food other than fruit. Eggs and meats clearly are not designed in any way whatsoever TO BE food, but humans invent tools in order to exploit those sources from the environment as food. Some can be acquired without tools but it is perfectly ok to say the development of more sophisticated weapons to take down larger game allowed us to advance (in evolutionary terms) over other animals and the like. Yet containing an animal (which was inevitable) and understanding that you can get both milk and then meat is just black magic.
The only thing that is "new" is understanding how to get the food that is usually only made for babys and getting that it is likely very nutrient dense. Then just figuring out how to take it and the time period of which it took place for domestication. So basically when people use these kinds of arguments without taking into account how all the other things 'man' does is actually beneficial for them, they damage their credibility in having a real discussion of how altering the environment or eating "new" foods may have consequences. Which is why I am only interested in measuring consequences, not hearing either idealization.
-
Consequences are what counts. Cool. O0 Thanks. Another time, another thread for the discussion of factors that affect us.
One thing about what you wrote though - eggs are a lot like milk and are designed to be food for young - at least the egg yolk that is. The yolk is in a way the baby bird's milk supply. The yolk is what the developing bird or reptile eats - so it is truly designed to be food too - like the milk and fruit you noted. That's a very interesting way to look at foods by the way - as foods that were developed to be eaten or not. Never thought about that besides with fruits. Egg yolks and milk are designed for babies - but still the only foods designed precisely for eating at all.
-
Good call. But is is different as milk is a whole food that flows right from one being to another. This is a factor of which increased intelligence likely saw could be interrupted. But anyway, even though the milk is meant for the feeding of the young (exclusively, anyone should admit) in a similar way, the egg itself - as it exists whole In the world - is not meant to be eaten by the offspring. It contains it of course.
But the irony is the very idea that milk is not meant to be eaten by others is pretty much the same idea that animals are not really created to be food, even though they are food for many other creatures.
But certainly seizing eggs falls under the natural understanding that all complex matter (meat or 'products' from most creatures) is usually soaked with nutrients of some kind, and is a omnivore's and carnivore's main innate primary desire to have these satisfied in usually whichever way a species is intelligent enough to obtain them.
-
Ah yes - the mammalian separation of the food source for development (which in the reptilian animal is completely contained until birth) became a flow that could be interrupted and usurped. In a way we do the same with raising chickens though. We interrupt the development, the eating of the food - it's just that all of the "milk" in that thick viscous fluid that is the yolk is en toto wrapped up with the growing baby - not to be interrupted - but to be taken all at once. It is not as apparent, but much like developing milk cows we have developed "milk" chickens in sense. We raise them to make the eggs so that we can take that baby feeding substance from them to feed ourselves with instead.
Yes, yes - what you are saying is important. Milk was not designed to be eaten by us, but neither were eggs and more importantly neither was meat or vegetables or nuts! Nothing but fruit really was designed to entice us for that species use. So, just because we are the only species that had the intelligence to figure out how to steal that milk - does that make it much different really from other species that have figured out how to more effectively steal eggs? Neither milk nor eggs were designed to be stolen - both are baby food. Are either of them perfect foods for us by themselves? Why ask that question? Do both of them offer a food source that can be used? Yes. Much like the different things that we can kill and steal - that we might not have been able to do otherwise without our increased intelligence. How useful something can be might only be able to be evaluated within the context of the overall diet.
So the most useful question is not: Is this food "meant" for me to eat?...... but it is: What are the results in health of eating this food for us today in our modern world and in combination with other foods and factors?
I learn so much from you KD. Thank you.
-
Well the people that say all products of domestication are bad and that eating eggs and nuts and fruits and such acquired from the wild are at best seasonal and that we should only eat things we retrieve ourself locally that involve no tools or processing to acquire or store, they win of course.
In all seriousness, some of the above truly are not as important for day to day health than perhaps the possible consequences of dairy and other things. Its pretty clear tho that certain interventions are presented by someone as having less consequences depending on what they see is important or "natural". Some of these labels are indeed meaningful and some more meaningful than others. MIlk is a product that is natural but the acquiring is indeed "un-natural". Its a "proper" Neolithic exploitation of materials that requires no technology per se or processing but requires a somewhat more advanced social structure and species -than, say chimps - to confine and breed animals. With a domesticated egg still by definition being 'more paleo' than milk even from a Purdue chicken butt I suppose.
Its equating these labels and distinctions with implicit absolute health ramifications i'm not quite sure is actually scientific. Keep in mind always that the more curent subjective take on what correlates with health dropping though the ages (if this is even accurate) isn't just automatically associated with the actual products of the Neolithic/agriculture etc... but also every other possible change these things contributed. people arent giving enough 'credit' to agriculture = less travel/variety and less meat or crowding/contaminated water etc... They just think grains = bad. This other focus is indeed mostly where the current consensus currently lays in science.
Speaking of which they have these sea otters that use rocks as a tool to hammer abalone shells (at a rate of 45 blows in 15 seconds, not quite accidental) and I wonder if any theorist has ever put it together that abalone is not really what these sea otters should be eating. I mean, no other aquatic seal mammal is doing that shite.
-
"Its equating these labels and distinctions with implicit absolute health ramifications i'm not quite sure is actually scientific. Keep in mind always that the more curent subjective take on what correlates with health dropping though the ages (if this is even accurate) isn't just automatically associated with the actual products of the Neolithic/agriculture etc... but also every other possible change these things contributed. people arent giving enough 'credit' to agriculture = less travel/variety and less meat or crowding/contaminated water etc... They just think grains = bad. This other focus is indeed mostly where the current consensus currently lays in science."
And there's the rub! It's got to be about results, not about concepts in the end.... and yet...... science is such a skewed thing. So much is about who benefits, who gets to make money off the results of the data that so often determines not only what gets studied but how the data is interpreted.
So my ears have really perked up to Tyler and his dairy as the evil monster lurking beneath the surface and messing with longer term results of people working on this little experiment of ours - because he's talking about some results. Here are people eating other raw animal foods and some do well with raw dairy and some do not.... according to their own subjective appraisal.... which may or may not have to do with other foods they eat or a whole litany of possible variables. It's in the longer-term negative and subtle side-affects of eating a food consistently that things seem to get the murkiest. What one considers to be "health" and "healthy" are so often so relative as well. I think about the people that have keyed into Johanna Budwig's well-established cure for cancer using sulfur containing dairy mixed with flax oil. This is how I got introduced to milk. The closest thing we have here that most people can get to her raw fully fermented German quark is pasteurized, homogenized cottage cheese with a tiny bit of live bacteria in comparison. As a raw foodist I experimented trying out this on myself (before giving it to other's with cancer) and felt that it was simply horrid as a food and couldn't imagine it healing anyone of anything - yet it does! My thought was that the people taking the cure must have diets that are so poor and/or be starving so badly and already feel so badly that it's a step up for them! Raw Quark didn't make me feel worse so I could at least imagine it being a food that could be generally health supporting - but then again - that was a comparison relative to my health which is generally higher than most - but who knows what it might do to someone that CAN survive outdoors and is healthier than stronger or maybe just different than me? Gauging results often necessitates deciding what your criteria are. Is it a positive indicator of what to choose to eat just because that food can relieve a sickness? Does my feeling better than what I felt like before necessarily mean a diet "should" be promoted generally? Just because one or more persons do not feel badly with raw milk or even feel badly beforehand and improve by drinking it- what does that really indicate in a general way? Johanna Budwig used the sulfured milk to help people with limited liver function (as all cancer sufferers are) by-pass the liver in making the flax oil become water soluble and be able to get into the cells. Is this necessary if you have a perfectly functioning liver? It's become Budwig that a weird new little fad in the health community started to mix any kind oil with some dairy - which makes no logical sense. Just because people with limited liver function were helped by one certain kind of fermented dairy and one oil it got generalized to all dairy and all oil for everyone. This is the kind of thing that so often happens. This was/is good for me - so is good all around.
I wish science was interested in how to promote real health and would study diets for the sake of general guidelines for increased health, but alas, that is not the approach. I think the best we can do is gather together our experiences as flawed and subjective as they are. Tyler sharing his experiences and those of others that he has known as well as Citrus reporting that dairy is fine for him and his partner has given me the impetus to do an experiments of my own with and without dairy completely for me and my husband (who thinks that raw is fine for him but does poorly with heated dairy).
One aspect that is important to take into consideration is the perceived difficulty of holding to an extremely narrow diet for us moderners. Raw dairy widens the playing field of taste, texture and enjoyment of food by a big margin for us. The question of whether or not to add dairy to a diet might also include what one's overall health goals are - what is your personal criteria for health. For me for instance, if my goal was to never be sick, never have a cold and to be generally healthy compared to most people while enjoying my food as much as possible, well, then including raw dairy in my diet would fulfill those goals. But that isn't the extent of my goals because I have been lucky enough to experience different levels of health beyond just the lack of disease and wish to explore them more.
And..... like you said early...... I have more at my disposal to possibly achieve levels of health and well-being that are unprecedented. I can move beyond the mind-set that just because I can't go out and find the food without tools all by myself or with the help of a few others it's the only food that would enhance my health. I don't have to label any food wrong or bad. I can open my mind and experiment for myself.
-
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I'm not saying because the bulk of "science" says that we should adapt to many things that - that is in fact true. What I'm saying is no matter how frequent the correlation, that these type of arguments aren't the final word on healthfulness of new or even old practices..as many would also point out with cannibalism, circumcision, bloodletting , human sacrifice and the like. Particularly as we are happy to enjoy MANY new practices, its clear people generally pick and choose at whim. That not ALL things are disqualified for being new in regards to whatever date. The problem is more that they suggest that it is scientific or based on real experiences while discounting whatever other experiences or science. Because in the end they still have the "neolithic" card which to them does not need to be backed up in any way as being absolute even when not always accurate. Not saying much more - in that respect - to how meaningful science is.
In regards to the truly minimal intervention to get AT dairy, are all these same arguments absolutely sufficient proof that water or clay buried under a lava bed only retrieved with a laser beam are automatically toxic to 'man'? Or how about something more realistic like deep ocean fish we would have 0 chances of ever eating without technology. Some with pretty advanced technology. 'Foods' that (very similar to dairy) have compounds people can isolate and claim is bad and "back up" with this "unnatural" element.
Basically, - to me - unless peoples' 'intolerances' really consist of swelling + emergency room + everyone and not come on the back of 20 years of more-or-less-ok 'Pizza Party" experience, I think its fair to say these typical 'arguments' are just start points of criticism/thinking these things might not be ideal. But then even if they are not ideal....in comparison to what? A diet that is 'paleo' but not truly a complete diet? or one not resembling anything in terms of structure as to what was done in nature? Basically anything fruit veg and meat regardless of the actual 'paleo' existence of the food itself (in the case of fruit, veg and meat in MOST cases) or in most cases: whatever heating or processing. i.e., flat-out missing many respects of whole food found in nature as 99% of 'conventional' 'paleos' practice and still rationalize against dairy because it requires one to 'confine animals' and have 'a stabilized non-nomadic culture that grows food' like everything else they do?
Just because doing both raw and paleo possibly grabs the best of both worlds and doesn't legitimize "anything paleo" as best doesn't make the typical 'paleo' argument valid in regards to everything in the past being good and everything we use tools or intelligence to obtain is bad. In fact I think it would be an attitude of quite the opposite.
-
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I'm not saying because the bulk of "science" says that we should adapt to many things that - that is in fact true. What I'm saying is no matter how frequent the correlation, that these type of arguments aren't the final word on healthfulness of new or even old practices..as many would also point out with cannibalism, circumcision, bloodletting , human sacrifice and the like. Particularly as we are happy to enjoy MANY new practices, its clear people generally pick and choose at whim. That not ALL things are disqualified for being new in regards to whatever date. The problem is more that they suggest that it is scientific or based on real experiences while discounting whatever other experiences or science. Because in the end they still have the "neolithic" card which to them does not need to be backed up in any way as being absolute even when not always accurate. Not saying much more - in that respect - to how meaningful science is.
In regards to the truly minimal intervention to get AT dairy, are all these same arguments absolutely sufficient proof that water or clay buried under a lava bed only retrieved with a laser beam are automatically toxic to 'man'? Or how about something more realistic like deep ocean fish we would have 0 chances of ever eating without technology. Some with pretty advanced technology. 'Foods' that (very similar to dairy) have compounds people can isolate and claim is bad and "back up" with this "unnatural" element.
Basically, - to me - unless peoples' 'intolerances' really consist of swelling + emergency room + everyone and not come on the back of 20 years of more-or-less-ok 'Pizza Party" experience, I think its fair to say these typical 'arguments' are just start points of criticism/thinking these things might not be ideal. But then even if they are not ideal....in comparison to what? A diet that is 'paleo' but not truly a complete diet? or one not resembling anything in terms of structure as to what was done in nature? Basically anything fruit veg and meat regardless of the actual 'paleo' existence of the food itself (in the case of fruit, veg and meat in MOST cases) or in most cases: whatever heating or processing. i.e., flat-out missing many respects of whole food found in nature as 99% of 'conventional' 'paleos' practice and still rationalize against dairy because it requires one to 'confine animals' and have 'a stabilized non-nomadic culture that grows food' like everything else they do?
Just because doing both raw and paleo possibly grabs the best of both worlds and doesn't legitimize "anything paleo" as best doesn't make the typical 'paleo' argument valid in regards to everything in the past being good and everything we use tools or intelligence to obtain is bad. In fact I think it would be an attitude of quite the opposite.
Ok, you're pointing out that people can point to particular data and disregard the rest to support their generalized opinions.
Then - questioning what technology really entails. Many things included in a paleolithic diet are certainly not ascertained with paleolithic technologies.
If one is going to eat paleo based on technology or have a less than optimum diet so that it can be labeled "paleo" it makes little sense to you to criticize dairy because it involves domestication.
I do understand you - I think?
I'm above basically agreeing with you and adding that really the only way to know if a certain food is going to be beneficial to you or not is to try it out and try out not having it in one's diet. One cannot assume that it will be good or bad because there are so many variables - but it is a very good thing to have a group like this where it can be pointed out that some people on a certain kind of diet found that dairy (although they thought it was at first) was in the long-run not ideal so that one can know that it might be wise to experiment with taking dairy out of one's diet to see. At certain stages in life or in certain degrees of health and mixed with other foods the results might change even for an individual.
I mentioned the Budwig material because that is a perfect example of dairy being better than what was being eaten and an example of a circumstance where dairy can be highly beneficial with a certain illness. Perhaps part of the reason why AV loves dairy so much is because he had cancer?
I getcha that just because paleolithic people didn't eat grains does not necessary equate to all grains prepared in all ways as being bad at all time. For instance, I find that certain soaked seeds prepared in certain ways digest beautifully and add to not only the variety in my diet, but I also to my general overall health. In that sense I am still not eating a paleolithic diet because of my sprinkled oat groats on my fruit. Would it be better for me to get rid of them just because they don't fit the paleolithic model? I really don't believe so. If one benefits from eating raw dairy, has tried the rest of one's diet with and without it and feels better with it - does it make sense to delete it just because it doesn't fit the paleolithic paradigm?
I'd rather feel healthier than fit into any box. So far the concept of raw and paleo has been extremely useful for me. I use it, instead of letting it define me and what it is that I must or must not eat.
-
You might be reading in to it too much, but basically there is many double standards going on in regard to what is "natural" and people are willing to change where the line is when it suits their needs. Even heated grains like rice have been suggested as being less worse than raw dairy at times in these kinds of 'paleo' arguments, so how does that remotely make sense in regards to the actual minimal tech involved and other factors re how natural it is to consume? Particulary as said in the above posts about what constitutes food meant to be eaten? I think that part is pretty transparent. Other than that, the problem is people want to point to some group of people (at some far off age or those nearer to today) to show that something is not necessary. This is never an accurate complete argument. People use it within 'paleo' centered debates as well to suggest that people don't X [need to eat lots of fat, various doses of vitamins from food, salt. whatever one can think of] or the possible need to exclude even natural things because some single other group did not. Its just not a complete closed argument because people do indeed have differnt needs based on a million differnt factors in themselves and in environment.
The idea that dairy or grain did not exist before a certain period really says nothing intrinsically about the healthfulness of these foods no matter what the corresponding correlation also shows. Only that + recorded results does, and these really are totally inconclusive to be suggested as absolute arguments. No matter what is absolutely best, just because someone excludes everything non-plaeo doesn't mean they have a better program than someone including these non-paleo things. Most people would see that as obvious considering the possible range one can create there. At the same time, the typical WAP arugments and such are also totally bogus. Just because people did *something* WHENEVER doesn't mean its ok either.
But there is a big but there. The thing is, the only double standard which is real and fair is that people indeed can point out that when others attribute specific problems to dairy, that they better have correlated in the people that consumed a lot of it all their life. OR they would have to suggest that dairy is somehow more a negative for contemporary people in a similar way likewise with those imbalances with "natural" things like modern and domestic fruit and protein and such. Or maybe they are arguing that modern avalaible dairy is significantly worse or contaminated in some way, which I actually believe might be a legitimate argument. Either way, adoping a diet that is found in nature at any time, as the inevitable answer to whether to eat something or not, is not the way to go.
-
Or maybe they are arguing that modern avalaible dairy is significantly worse or contaminated in some way, which I actually believe might be a legitimate argument.
On that thought:
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1kngFpnMR (http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1kngFpnMR)
However, milk was the subject of the study and suggests that only milk was affected which is most definitely not the case.
-
Milk has indeed been on the planet since before humans and primates and is literally one of the ONLY foods designed to be food other than fruit.
This argument seems foolish. Whether or not we humans rationalize whether a food was designed for consumption means absolutely nothing to the body. The body will break down and utilize what it can and all other materials will either clog it up or just be flushed out. However, this does not trump the argument that there are certain foods which are more "powerful" (healthy, nutritious, life-giving, and so on) than others. My concern is whether or not I should continue to consume milk if there will be long-term detrimental side effects.
I've never felt as good as I did when I was on the milk diet. I'm not sure if this was because of the huge amount of carbohydrates (in the form of lactose) or if milk truly is a powerful food. That so many other people avoid raw dairy and criticize the consumption of dairy confuses me and led me to questioning the power of this food. Moreover, I've never been able to digest and handle red meat as well as I have since I pumped my body full of milk.
I'm of the opinion that milk may not be ideal when consumed with other foods, that is: milk is most powerful when consumed by itself.
Either way, adoping a diet that is found in nature at any time, as the inevitable answer to whether to eat something or not, is not the way to go.
I could see how this could be foolish and now see the point of your comments in light of this last remark. I suppose I brought up this topic to understand if there are any other concerns I should have for consuming dairy. Also, I admit that I'm impatient in that rather than testing dairy in my diet for long-term effects I'm searching for the answer through the advice and experience of others, but it seems that search is ultimately a foolish one.
-
I believe each of us has to find our own answers in regards to the Dairy dichotomy.
My personal reactions to dairy are so impossible to fully understand, that to claim that I know how it works in other people seems foolish.
I remember drinking pasteurized milk as a child. I went through different stages. When I was real young I never liked drinking milk, but would have it daily with my morning bowl of cereal. I never liked the taste of plain milk, although I would drink chocolate milk on occasion. Then I hit a growth spurt around 16 years old. I grew 9 inches in one year. During that time I craved milk heavily and would drink a good amount. Now that I remember I also began to crave and drink raw eggs around that time. I never liked cooked eggs,but I would drink a couple a day through that time period.
(coincidentally this was during the time when they were adding hormones to the dairy cows. Me and many of the people I know growing up had these weird growth spurts that didn't correlate with ancestral norms)
Anyway I eventually lost my apatite for it and then only used it for cereal. By the time I became ill in my early twenty's I lost my ability to handle most foods in general including milk. I foolishly tried to eat yogurt , being brainwashed by the probiotic propaganda into thinking that it was somehow easier to digest. Looking back now, I believe that I did develop an intolerance to dairy and it was aggravating ,if not causing some of my digestive troubles and liver congestion..
This is not an uncommon experience. My brother lived off of fried cheese for years and has all kinds of issues which point to dairy intolerance, although he ignores the chronic constipation and other health issues. My uncle loved milk and drank it regularly until he hit about 40 years old, and then it began to give him digestive problems. I know countless others who have all sorts of vague but real issues with dairy.
This is why I side with Tyler in warning newbies about the possible dangers of dairy(raw or pasteurized). There are allot of people with already damaged digestion who hear or read AV and others claim the benefits of raw dairy and jump right into a dairy rich diet, even if their body was never fully acclimated to dairy to begin with. These people may suffer needlessly from issues that could be avoided. There seems to be a good number of people here that have reported issues while using dairy, even if those individuals do not themselves believe dairy is the cause.
I tried raw milk early into this diet, and I liked the taste , but it made me feel a little bad. I also ate some raw cheeses ,that were really tasty, but they would make me feel bloated after eating so much. My aversion to dairy comes from a gut feeling, that is hard to explain.I still admit that from time to time I will eat a small hunk of raw cheese.
My third child is two years old now and will drink about 32 ounces of goats milk at night. She seems to thrive on dairy raw and pasteurized.
My 5 year old son, on the other hand will eat yogurt and cheese, but hates milk (both raw or pasteurized). He gets bad gas pains after drinking it. In fact he wont drink it at all anymore: the last time he was tempted by some chocolate milk,he ended up complaining about his stomach for hours.
Milk intolerance seems to run along gender lines at my house. My girls and their mother can drink milk by the bucket with no problem, but my son and I just cant take it.
Each person who is concerned about possible issues with raw dairy may just be on their own. All I can sensibly advise is for each person to try to use their own instincts and intuition.
-
Know when to use raw dairy.
I am incompatible with raw dairy. I experimented many times. I just can't digest it without my body resorting to intense gas formation.
My 10 year old son benefited with a short stint on raw dairy for a few weeks to help heal his intestines. After that he just went downhill with constipation and mucus formation. End of dairy. But his intestines and pooping to color brown normal were helped.
I agree most people have no idea how to use dairy, thats why reading such material from Bernarr McFadden and Dr Charles Porter is vital before embarking on Raw Milk.
I had severe mucus for 3 weeks, coming out my eyes, nose and throat, aches and pains, at one point the pain from coughing was so bad I though my lungs were going to come up through my throat. But it all cleared and my airways have been clearer than at any time in my life since (approximately 4 months ago) I can only imagine the amount of Mercury and other toxicity I got rid of during that period. Detox isn't pretty but No pain No gain.
Raw milk is definately best done alone although since going back on some solid food (Raw Fish, a little fruit and cooked veggies) I have discovered I can drink Raw milk from breakfast throughout the day and then have solid food in the evening, just try not to mix the two.
Its been my experience that Raw Milk is without doubt the most detoxifying substance known to man.
-
Thank you, sabertooth and Brady, for adding to the conversation.
-
Milk has indeed been on the planet since before humans and primates and is literally one of the ONLY foods designed to be food other than fruit. Eggs and meats clearly are not designed in any way whatsoever TO BE food, but humans invent tools in order to exploit those sources from the environment as food.
This argument seems foolish. Whether or not we humans rationalize whether a food was designed for consumption means absolutely nothing to the body.
hrm? its not an argument at all, its a fact. Seeing since I have not at the point of writing drank (mammal) milk regularly for maybe a decade or more, its a pretty unbiased use of fact. It indeed proves nothing about what is edible or vital or ok or not-bad.
milk is a whole food that flows right from one being to another. This is a factor of which increased intelligence likely saw could be interrupted. But anyway, even though the milk is meant for the feeding of the young (exclusively, anyone should admit) in a similar way, the egg itself - as it exists whole In the world - is not meant to be eaten by the offspring. It contains it of course.
But the irony is the very idea that milk is not meant to be eaten by others is pretty much the same idea that animals are not really created to be food, even though they are food for many other creatures.
The thing for you is, is that its going to be pretty hard to decode symptoms or true problems (particularly long term) from yours or others' dairy consumption. What I said is just to accurately counter a simple phrase people will utter about how they see nature that supplies 0 real evidence about what types of things we are adapted to or not. So its a problem to base a discussion around that and whatever experiences they have had + whatever innaccurate studies on people that ironically their own 'paleo' and 'raw' theories themselves would make clear are automatically unhealthy specimens to test such things as healthy or not, but stubbornly not so present in people in nature.
---
This isn't to suggest that dairy is even good at all, its the typical BS around these issues that is worth pointing out, regardless of what people choose to eat. Its just incorrect thinking about wellness or even anthropology in my opinion. This is particularly a problem if it is within an environment that does not encourage experimentation, true free thinking, and has some set answer/all the answers for everything (even when they arn't actually so rational/logical)...don't you think?
The "play it safe route" would involve not eating dairy products, but then you are then automatically more in the category that will assume that eating some contemporary version of "naturally" is supplying all your needs as a modern human or as a human at all , as these perfect ancient humans may have done quite a few things differently than we guess about here.
-
KD - I noticed that in another post that you stopped eating dairy a bit ago, would you please tell me how that has affected you personally? Why did you decide to cut out dairy?
-
financial reasons and laziness at first. Desire to truly experiment followed...and extended it.
I don't particularly like eating dairy, if i'm doing dairy...its for my health. Based on what I noticed on my experiment and lots of other reading/considering I'm just now experimenting with even more dairy than before..which was always pretty limited for the last 3-4 years (mostly blocks of butter). I've been skeptical in the past to the sugars and proteins in the milk itself, based on "reactions" to eating raw cheeses (proteins only) as well as fresh milk. I just never did great with milk or cheese so I had given up and I was doing VLC or some variation anyway so It didn't really matter. Plus milk was hard or impossible to get regularly here. Anyway, yeah maybe 3 months which is more than the one month I've heard quoted to "tell how damaging dairy is" or something. I don't really want to get into it in this thread, but its all negatives (or more accurately projections, nothing really significantly negative in that period) in terms of cutting dairy.
Regardless of what anyone claims, I can say taking a few small sips of warm milk PER DAY for one or two weeks, does make a drastic difference in terms of regenerating the lactase enzyme. Although some say disrupted digestion might continue for some, as lactase deficiency is also linked to deficiency of other enzymes and hormones, hypothyroidism (low body temp) and bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine, likely due to the first two. I can't confirm that but it makes sense. Whether one eats dairy, all these things factor into general health and ability to digest all foods properly, particularly "complex" food combinations. This is also linked to improper K (and other vitamins than ironically are in dairy) as well as things like sodium and vit D. if you see where I am going there.
Based on those things and anecdotal info on probably the healthiest or unhealthiest people one would know in real life, I really don't think extreme health is correlated at all with inability to produce lactase, regardless of how natural it is to consume lactose containing foods.
-
I think aajonus is amazingly right about high meat, and I think his mistake is eggs and milk. "high meat" has improved me, raw dairy and eggs hasn't. I think the only way to ever know is to live in the amazon for a year, then you'd know what promotes growth.
-
Most people in the world could not benefit from a raw paleo diet because they could not afford it and probably couldn't deal with the logistics. Most of the people in the world could benefit from a raw paleo diet. Dairy and eggs are insanely more economic than raw meat.
Although, I don't know if any of y'all eat this way but the paleo diet could be made to be economic... if it relied primarily on inverts for protein and fat.
economics and practical farming play into this heavily in mind.
I could afford to eat raw primal but it would be more of a hardship and also less enjoyable.
Ice cream is my fuckin favorite food.
A big part of why I prefer raw primal is because it's all of my favorite foods, I really really really like it, way better than cooked foods. I used to be somewhat of a chef too, I cooked all of my own meals for 5 years.
I was suffering health wise, and raw milk helped me, I had heard of raw meat and eggs being good for you, but I couldn't imagine liking them, but actually they made cooked food taste bad.
Up the dairy haha.
-
This is not the view of many Americans. These constantly point out how raw dairy is way more expensive than raw meat. Even though raw dairy is much cheaper in the UK, my craving for raw dairy(those with allergies often get cravings for the very food they are allergic to) meant that my food-bills soared as a result.
People could lower their costs by eating raw meat provided that they switched to raw wild game instead, or if they ensured that laws were passed which banned grains-subsidies(ie if they voted for Ron Paul).
-
Just for information sake, where I source food the prices are as such as of 2012:
$6.49 for a dozen eggs
$5.49 for the cheapest cut of pre-frozen, lean beef
$7.00 for a gallon of milk
A dozen eggs and a gallon of milk will last a lot longer than a pound of beef. If I could get more wild game I would. Perhaps during hunting season I'll be able to get some.
-
The meat you refer to is 100% grassfed, I trust, and the eggs are all free-range, and the milk comes from 100% grassfed cows, at the very least?
-
Yes; yes; and yes.
-
Practicality does count Rogue Farmer! You make a good point. I can raise my own chickens for eggs in my back yard and grow my own produce and I have a source for fresh milk to make my own butter and quark and yogurt - but I can't find a source for fresh unfrozen red meat that is accessible for me like the eggs and milk. On this note I am going to start trying to raise my own fish soon. I raise bugs but haven't gotten myself to eat any yet - I feed them to the chickens.
If you raise your own produce, bugs and even grains you can have eggs for pretty much nothing. I can take fresh raw milk (I know this isn't the same for everyone) and keep it indefinitely where I will still like it with fermentation. If you aren't willing to hunt or can't figure out another source for fresh meat and if you don't like high meats - it's expensive and not as practical for a lot of people.
I don't have a farm but do have a backyard. It's astonishing really how much food you can produce in a regular old backyard. It's at least a whole lot better than the vast majority eat. Of course if you are allergic to dairy or eggs that changes things entirely. If not though, some high-powered and inexpensive nutrition there.
-
I'm not talking about $, I am talking about real economics. A beef cow produces a big calf every year. A dairy cow produces a big enough calf every year and 1000+ gallons of milk a day.
A Normande cow (like the one girl I got) makes a lot of milk and a lot of beef.
In the olden days, most cows were dual purpose and made plenty of beef and plenty of milk, today a jersey cow (good milk cow) still makes a lot of beef for a family.
Goats make gangbuster milk compared to cows for what they eat and you could cut and haul all their food to them if you don't have any acreage.
Not to run on, but cows have an advantage over goats in that they can make all that milk off of just pasture, while goats need a much more complex diet and are prone to sickness from pasture parasites...
-
On the other side, there are places where a dairy cow won't be able to make it on pasture but a beef cow could do just great.
-
There was that Mann study on the atherosclerotic aspects of the Maasai
That study holds little weight, as the Maasai studied had access to flour/processed foods, and were thus not entirely traditional. The specific details of their diet weren't considered/controlled which makes any conclusions speculative. Dairy can't be pinpointed as the problem.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Did-Masai-Have-Atherosclerosis.html (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Did-Masai-Have-Atherosclerosis.html)
-
The traditional diet of the Maasai also included grains.
As regards raw dairy, if it was really so healthy, one would expect the consumption of raw dairy to have negated the atherosclerotic effect a bit, but clearly this was not the case.
But, yes, since atherosclerosis has been directly linked to the consumption of cooked foods, raw dairy is unlikely to be the culprit, in hindsight.
-
I'm not talking about $, I am talking about real economics. A beef cow produces a big calf every year. A dairy cow produces a big enough calf every year and 1000+ gallons of milk a day.
A Normande cow (like the one girl I got) makes a lot of milk and a lot of beef.
In the olden days, most cows were dual purpose and made plenty of beef and plenty of milk, today a jersey cow (good milk cow) still makes a lot of beef for a family.
Goats make gangbuster milk compared to cows for what they eat and you could cut and haul all their food to them if you don't have any acreage.
Not to run on, but cows have an advantage over goats in that they can make all that milk off of just pasture, while goats need a much more complex diet and are prone to sickness from pasture parasites...
Interesting information there Rogue about the breeds and the larger economics - I learned something from you so thanks. For me personally the savings doesn't relate directly though. I've thought of getting a miniature goat a long time as I love goats - but they have to be kept at least in pairs to be happy and I would have to import their food and they would have little room and not be all that happy living in my yard because they would have to be always contained or chained up - cuz goats are great climbers - and I don't even need as much milk as too miniature goats would produce and the extra work would be considerable - whereas with my chickens they live the life of riley, take almost no effort and are a delight. Cows and goats are for larger families with more land - chickens are for anyone with even the tiniest little plot of land - or even can be kept as pets indoors. But - the bigger economics of milk that you talk about make it possible for me to gather with other people to obtain a dense raw food source at what I consider to be an amazingly affordable price - only $7 for the cheese, butter and whey that we need for two weeks eating some every day. The only thing that beats that is my own chickens with me raising their food. Good meat on the other hand is massively expensive and hard to obtain in comparison.
-
Good meat on the other hand is massively expensive and hard to obtain in comparison.
Clearly then, the answer is to replant forests and regenerate a thriving natural ecosystem which can supply plentiful resources including wild game.
This guy from India planted 1360 acres of forest, single-handedly. It is host to tigers, deer, elephants and that sort of traditional India fauna.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/indian-man-jadav-molai-pa_n_1399930.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/indian-man-jadav-molai-pa_n_1399930.html)