It is of course: Are we Humans naturally knuckle-walkers or fist/palm walkers? Clearly we were never designed to walk around on two feet. Whatever way you look at it, there's no escaping the fact that walking on all-fours is a more robust, faster, healthier and much more efficient means in all ways of getting around. If you don't find that, it's because you've been trained into a life of bipedalism... some of which may have malformed you permanently and you may never recover from properly. It's also confounded by the fact that my knuckles and fists have worn away and broken off, probably coincidentally after I started walking on all fours (or due to earlier malformation).

As paleos we must of course throw off the fashionable, artificial, vain, unnatural, modern, anomaly of bipedalism and use our four limbs to get around and climb up trees. In fact right now I am suspended upside down from just my legs, aaahhh the refreshing feeling of blood rushing to my head and clotting there is truly magnificent.
 
Anyway, here's the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810162005.htm

Sure, I guess maybe not if you're completely retarded.

I posted this on another forum (raw vegan) forum a while ago. The females there have said that they find menstruation far easier when eating raw foods anyway. One posted this url:  http://debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com/2009/04/periods-they-may-be-normal-but-are-they.html
 
Additional RAF slant: Fool Wrangham once commented on an experiment showing raw foodist women lost tons of weight and didn't menstruate and summed up something like: "How could we have reproduced if we weren't menstruating?!". Obviously either the women would start menstruating again and maybe it was the rapid weight loss that caused it. Secondly.... the earlier the menarche, the bleaker a girl's metabolic syndrome outlook is throughout life, the correlation is extraordinary. By age 14 it may be too late to turn back the clock on some things.
 
First of all, I take calcium and vitamin d3 supplements because I'm afraid of bone deterioration. I know I could go for greens with calcium in them... but why should I?? How would primitive man know calcium was in such and such a plant? He wouldn't!!!!! Primitive man just ate as he pleased and was perfectly evolved for that.

You know how (most of our) our parents' generation is shorter than us? That's because we have better nutrition and healthcare nowadays right? WRONG!!!! It's because we have WORSE nutrition!!!

Since day one we're overloaded with high-energy, unnatural foods and almost definitely dairy products that are LACED with growth hormones and huge amounts of calcium right through our teenage years. The body grows to an unnatural size. This isn't a natural height to be, THAT'S why we need such a huge supply of calcium and otherwise can get osteoporosis or other horrible bone diseases... our bones are brittle and too elongated and we need so much calcium for life. This goes on right throughout our teenage years, especially our growth years. We were never meant to take that milk except when we were growing rapidly and a baby!!! That's for calves!!!!

If you look at the longest living, the Asians and especially the Okinawans, they're all short. We're unnaturally large, we had too much calcium since day one and we need it now.

I realise the menopause one is a bit strange and I may be wrong on it, but I had this idea myself a while ago and the more I think about it, the more this seems to make sense.

Humans are basically the only species that goes through menopause (some primates that have been fed human foods seem to go through it when extremely old). Don't you find this very strange??? That out of all the species we're the only one???

Here's the thing: it doesn't make evolutionary sense! There's a few ideas about it, such as the grandmother helping her offspring... but to me it clearly doesn't make any sense that evolution would do that. Maybe it really is natural, but it feels very odd to me.

In America the age of menarche for girls is 10-11 whereas in rural China where their foods are plant-based, it's more like 18-19!!! Even back in old America in our parents' time it was 13-14. My old biology teacher told us that was because of better nutrition... WRONG!!!! It's because of FAR, FAR, WORSE nutrition!!! It's the exact same as the calcium. It's now very well established that the sooner you have menarche, the more fat you're likely to be and the more metabolic syndrome you're likely to have and the worse your risk for heart disease etc. (of course this could be changed if you change your eating habits).

When put on a raw diet (in a study trying to be against raw diets), women lost tons of weight and stopped menstruating. This, the authors concluded, showed that raw food diets are unsustainable and we're not evolved for them at all, how can we be evolved for them if we can't reproduce on them?! I would bet my right arm that the women would start menstruating again if they continued on their raw diet... and would be at their healthiest weight. Then they would menstruate with LESS EGGS and possibly more slowly... not this quick rush to release all their eggs that would later put them in menopause.

Because you may as well go "low protein" or "low fat". It doesn't make evolutionary sense to try to quantify foods like that.

It's not what paleo man ate except in very occasional times. If you have metabolic syndrome or something and want to do it that's fine, but that's not paleo. *shrugs* It's not my fault. Low carb is something else. It's not very paleo-like to go counting carbs, or anything else.
 

I suggest that you stop eating raw meat immediately as it's full of not only parasites and worms, but hormones and medications given to the animals. The only raw meat I would eat would be extremely fresh, organic meat.

As animal protein forms only a very low percentage of a true paleo diet, there is no problem. You can lightly cook eggs and get canned fish.

That lady that was talking to you about parasites etc. is no fool, she knows what she's on about. Raw, organic, ridiculously fresh meat would be fine.... but factory meat? Frozen meat? You're playing dice with your insides.

Raw liver tastes very like cooked liver.

Andrew Moulden MD, PhD

This guy's an MD and has a doctorate, so not exactly the best source of information.

If I have a few apples, then use mouthwash, then have a banana a half hour later... is that ruining the mouthwash effect? Maybe it would be the exact same as if you ate just the banana and nothing else?
   
I'd like if anyone could point me to in-depth information on it. Like I suppose the ideal thing would be to see the amount of bacteria after eating each thing and after brushing/rinsing/flossing.

That's pretty interesting Lex.  So your body takes over 1/2 of your protein and converts to glucose?  I have to ask though, why not just eat some carbs, if you're going to get a blood sugar response anyways?  What's the biological difference between eating some carbs and having carbs synthesized from protein and fat?  Other than the obvious digestive differences.

Of course, there is none except the body is stressed out a lot. That's why the "zero carb" idea is such insane bloody nonsense. In a hilarious twist, the "zero carb" idea/term comes a lot from those "zero carb" soft drinks they've been pushing for the past few years.

Maybe by doing it you weigh a little less on more calories, who knows. Why do that crap to your body? It's a prescription for aging if you ask me.

Our bodies have to have insulin.  It's the fundamental hormone for pretty much all life on the planet, and is key for almost every metabolic process in our bodies, even if in small amounts.  Greater insulin sensitivity means that less insulin is required to achieve the same effect, but no insulin means we die.  Agreed that most of us have too much though.   

Excuse me but what exactly do you mean by "most of us"?

On the raw paleo forum, we're I would imagine among the least likely to have it, I certainly don't.

I'll be honest with you guys... I'm actually eating muesli+water (it's meant to be a health cereal, has oats, grains, raisins, stuff like that, it should be raw, but unfortunately this has some whey and I think even brown sugar... even dried fruit is not very paleo anyway) for a bit (yesterday I started and I'm getting a very strong craving now I think I'll give in to, it's amazing the addiction these things can have!!!) until I see my dentist again. The reason is that my dentist isn't back until the 16th and I'm growing quite afraid about my teeth. My dentist warned me a lot about the fruit over six months back. I ate a bit of dry fruit as well today which I usually never do and am trying to eat more close-to-raw animal protein as well.
 
I am just concerned about my teeth, let's not forget that people on SAD diets often have their wisdom teeth whipped out before they've left highschool.... they stupidly don't even think of it as a big deal.

Doubt people care, I'd just feel a bit of a fraud not to mention it. Maybe I should have just eaten more nuts.... I do agree buying this cereal probably wasn't a good idea. After yesterday I vaguely decided I wouldn't eat any more of it, but I'm starting to almost get obsessive thoughts about eating it. I also got strong antieptic mouthwash I'm taking as much as possible (yes I know, antiseptic mouthwash isn't great)

As for our teeth I feel as though they are versatile but mainly made for meat.

Noooo... no no, you're not right there. Teeth made mainly for meat are shaped totally differently. Now you may have quibbles with the practical implications of MODERN teeth and FRUIT, but not vegetable eating. I do think it's worth looking more at the shape than the alleged implications because noone can really prove the implications or what their real cause is from. From the shape human teeth are mainly herbivore, with the slightest of canines as seen on omnivorous but mostly herbivore teeth.

To the guy who said that commercial fruit is so different: it is not. As I have tirelessly explained before the fruit you buy in the stores is NOT selected by higher sugar, higher sugar fruit is NOT more appealing to humans, the sweetest fruit is NOT from the highest sugar it is from the most nutritious. Fruit has been artificially selected to give the most nutritious fruit possible while unhealthy apples etc. are thrown away. Our taste evolved over millions of years to be drawn towards the most NUTRITIOUS foods, just like our eyes evolved.... yes it may be hard for us to imagine such a complex thing at first. It has NOTHING to do with the sugar in a fruit. Please stop being blind and think about things for a change, think about whether the fruit you like most has more sugar or not... look up what fruit online has the most sugar. It has ZERO to do with how good it tastes and has EVERYTHING to do with bitter and twisted and deranged fat sugar-haters who fall back on bad foods and get fat(ter) over and over again. Open your eyes and see for yourself instead of just reading someone else's word.
  

The physiology of human teeth is actually one of the best arguments for NOT following vegetarianism.

Definitely, it is the best argument. But PaleoPhil, our teeth may be ruined by early food exposure and never have developed properly.

As I've posted elsewhere, the carnivorous aspects of our omnivorous teeth tend to be ignored by vegetarians. The teeth of all carnivores and of humans consist of canine and brachydont (low-crowned) teeth. Brachydont teeth erupt once and do not grow or get replaced and they have a continuous, fairly uniform enamel that coats the external surface of the crown of brachydont teeth.

So what if "the teeth of all carnivores and of humans consist of canine and low-crowned teeth"? You can equally say the teeth of all herbivores and of humans consist of wisdom teeth and incisors. Omnivores can have them both.

Herbivores' teeth tend to have rough surfaces spiked with ridges of enamel (lophs), better enabling grinding. Strict herbivores have aradicular (without roots) hypsodont (high-crowned) molars that grow continuously, which prevents their disappearance as they are worn down by the frequent grinding. Most of the enamel in hypsodont teeth lies beneath a layer of cementum. Even omnivores whose diets are plant-heavy, such as rodents, have hypsodont teeth, whereas we have none.

If humans are really designed to be 100% plant eaters, why do humans have none of the hypsodont teeth that herbivores and omnivores with plant-heavy diets have?

You mention rodents... well rodents have no canines and yet are sometimes carnivorous and YET their incisors are continually growing right throughout their lives, and I'm sure there are other examples as well.

I could just as equally say: If humans are really designed to be 100% meat eaters then why do humans have no growing canine/incisors teeth that many carnivores have. And remember, I'm NOT saying that we're designed to be 100% vegetarians!!!! I have never stated that.  

HUNTING

Regarding hunting, big game hunting is not the only kind of hunting. Unless we are to believe that small animals like insects, lizards, fish, birds and small mammals are plants, then ALL primates hunt, and of course all primates eat at least some nonplant foods. On this subject of hunting and consumption of fauna by primates I devoted a thread and supplied much evidence.

Nice try PaleoPhil, trying to sort of merge "hunting" in with all kinds of gathering of animal protein. I suggest you look the word "hunting" up in a dictionary.   You RAFists are so taken with the romantic idea of man going out hunting it's ridiculous. Only in very recent history has man really taken to hunting and even then... most modern tribes, the vast majority get the most of their food by far from meat.
 
The old fables and fairytales of people's living on animal blood and cow's milk are clearly made-up exaggerated nonsense. People always tell lies and exaggerate. Considering some of those tribes will tell you of how the village founder fought off twenty lions and four pythons to save a baby there, and kill you and eat you for disrespecting one of their Gods... I wouldn't believe everything they say. Maybe the Inuit can exist well on a NEARLY all RAF diet... Inuit look hugely different from us, so much that you might say they're a subspecies.... you have to accept that they are more developed for RAF than we are... otherwise you're creating a contradiction because they only split from us a short time ago and yet we are supposed to have evolved to have a high RAF a short time ago..... ANYWAY....).

You know how in those nature documentaries there are lions that guilefully and skillfully and tactfully come in for the kill? Oh how majestic they are in hunting their prey, how beautifully they track down and hunt their prey... really, I'm serious they are! A beauty and wonder of nature to behold... then the camera pans out a little and you see a couple of sneaky, surreptitious, weasely-looking, lamer couple of hyenas and vultures around waiting for the the lions to have their fill so they can move in on the remains... now it's not that I'm not saying the humans are in the latter group.... not at all. The humans, when times were bad and they were very hungry, were actually out of the picture behind the hyenas and vultures! The scavengers of scavengers.... as hyenas and vulutures could rip a human apart no problem. A little before they resorted to eating dirt/bark etc. the humans would be waiting for THOSE guys to have their fill and THEN after all of that move in for their little bits of meat.

Look at this place. You start off as a forager, move on to egg-poacher or whatever.... it's a JOKE! The smartest, most skillful, most brainy humans were the FORAGERS!!!! Those who regard hunting as being somehow "superior" are making a big mistake. You're very possibly ruining your health over a kind of religion or imagery of hunters as being such great indviduals.... perhaps they were with regards to RANK, after all hunting shows off prowess but NOT with regard to HEALTHY EATING! Why would it take more brains to hunt than to forage??? It doesn't! That's why Orangutans, who are basically frugivores are the second smartest species on the planet.... they need to know the locations and behaviour of all nuts, fruit, etc. all around them. What are good to eat and when etc.

Van please don't think I'm attempting to pick apart your post or anything when I quote you multiple times. It's only because I think it's an intelligent post that I'm replying to it in a lengthy way.

You'll have to find out for yourself.

I agree, the best way each person can find his/her best diet is by experimentation and sticking with what they like.

Many have learned how addictive sugar in any form can be,

err... but fish/eggs/peanuts are just as if not MORE addictive. There's nothing inherently wrong with being addictive anyway.

and when consuming in even moderate quantities, how difficult it becomes for your body to become a fat burner, or a body that can efficiently use fat for fuel. 

I don't want to burn fat, I'm at my ideal weight. Hilariously, if I ever want to add a few cheap calories... I eat lots of peanuts or fish. Fat and protein are not natural fuels, that's why the body hates using them for energy and tries to avoid it as much as possible. Honestly guys, I don't know what you "very little carb" guys are doing to yourselves, but it could range from disasterous long-term ruination of your health or perhaps you will end up about the same as SAD diet.

Something someone said onetime online was, that fruit eaters, (not just an occasional fruit eater, as in a piece of fruit like one would have a piece of candy for desert) would rather fail in health than give up their fruit. 

If it feels good then it's good for you. The only thing that obfuscates this is processed food.

I was that way, and then I read that line and it hit right in the face.  He was talking about me.  That's when I gave it up.  Now it tastes sooo sweet, so artificial.  I am not saying that my experience is truth for everyone.  But when I did give it up, I practically laid on the couch for several days until my body could start producing energy from fat sources. Most will never go the distance to find out what it trully feels like to burn fat instead of sugar for energy.   When we're young we can take the rise and fall of blood sugar and insulin responses over and over. 

Frankly, I very much doubt that you were high fruitarian for very long. I bet it was the chocolate chip cookies and ice-cream etc. that you ate along with your banana that made you fat. Otherwise you wouldn't be fat. Let me go on record as saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be fat if you eat nothing but fresh fruit. I can't say I'm 60 years old and been pure fruitarian for the past 20 years and I'm in wonderful health, but there are some who can say things similar to that.

But a little bit of reading will enlighten one

Read up on evolution, NOT the latest faddist nonsense to come out of a lab. Do you realise that the more they hypothesize, the more "breakthroughs" they're said to have found the more money and eminence they gain? Nutritional science in a lab is basically a religion these days, not everyone buys into it.

The whole point of this board is "raw paleo forum".... ie. what PALEO man ate, NOT some clinical findings in a lab. 

on the aging effects of excessive insulin exposure. There is a lot of emerging research daily.  And then we can read all about the benefits of fruit, it's antioxidents etc.... and feel good about continuing eating it.  But for me,  I only really knew when I put the stake in the ground and said 'I am going to see if what others are writing about is true".  And for the me my body stays so much more in balance by not giving it the swings that good amounts of fruit and or sugar put it through.

Okay fine. Let me just throw you a thought though. And you might find this a strange idea at first, but please give it a chance: When I first heard of the idea of "metabolic syndrome", my first thought was the same as most others "yeah, they're probably eating too much and not exercising and had a lower metabolism to begin with, sucks". Now I absolutely believe that it is a biochemical transformation that occurs at earliest in your 30s or 40s and is as a result of constant abuse of insulin over and over when the person was younger. NOT little pulses of insulin, but extreme insulin load many times what it would ever rise to with fruit. Sort of like diabetes-lite.... a horrible disease that you get that limits the amount of sugar you can take. Maybe you have that, hell maybe a very high protein diet could be necessary for a while to try to reverse it or maybe there is no reversing. So maybe the diet really is best for YOU, but a person eating fruit their whole lives isn't going to get into the territory of eating 20 times the fruit they're eating, which would be what was necessary to get that horrible condition or diabetes. That's what could also cause such a high-protein phenomenon, have a think about that and if you don't like the idea fine, but just remember that it's definitely not rawpaleo to eat 90%+ non-fruit.... and that's what this particular forum is supposed to be for.