The philosophy is actually that even if people were doing the exact 'holistic' stuff (which really is not emphasized at all) and were locked in the same room, they would still be optimizing their health with these foods over just muscle meats and fruits. If people disagree they should present their cases against the results of others, not their results on one program to another or based on how they feel without any objective analysis of their current health shared publicly.

Give a modern person the actual breakdowns of blood, whole animal parts, bugs, bacterias, sunshine, lack of environmental damage, and a supposed abundant food energy that an ancient person had, sure that can work. It still doesn't form a limit on whether it would even be the most optimal and people can still improve upon such if they desire.

People can have a variety of personal successes or failures, but when they start attacking this conceptual possibility they are clearly ignoring reality for beliefs. Mimicking/replacing these and doing things that heal/repair are always more important than restricting ones diet to suspected non-problematic foods. This is automatically conclusive if you have any examples of people who remove 0 such foods and have done better. This is especially true when people label things as 'natural' with known, and unknown consequences, like ocean fishing or eating exclusively muscle meats and eating without their corresponding bones/blood/organs - missing the very nutrients that were replaced throughout our history with things like milk and processing plant food. This 'wholeness', or at the very least nutrients and minerals (that are absent in meat and fruit), are essential for human health, often in any form one can get.

As for examples, there are plenty of people on to other things, or those failing to even have what would be a regular standard of basic health and rationalizing it with their following a set 'natural' program which 'must be good', and also lots about these programs which are actually great and thus can be plenty good for many folks. These positives have little to do with the purism aspect but with removing some obvious poor habits, adding in healthy proteins/fats/bacterias and so forth and the fact that not everyone is set up to do things like immediately manufacture lactase etc. and compounded with the possibility that alot of PD tools maybe arn't what people need either. Its making health decisions on a case by case basis that is important thing to walk away with..and making sure one actually gets proper nutrition over ideals, not that there has to be some magic to honey or dairy or whatever.

the lacking of evidence is the legitimate criticism against AVs claims, doens't change his intentions or ideals, or the fact that he's still kicking (and well from most perspectives) from a diet that most camps would claim should rapidly deteriorate a person and not cure them. So its already a loss for them even if he died tomorrow compared to how many people talk about how detrimental these methods are and died even more prematurely and even others who had minimal preexisting problems. Most while in poor health the whole time like all the founders of natural hygiene and similar nonsense. Having something that gets you from A to B is all that matters ultimately and you can only narrow out things based on evidence, not prove things are good or sustainable. There is unfortunately no way to prove something is good, only correlate which things are helpful or not so great and have general standards of what is acceptable progress. Not 'hey I did all of this right by the evolution book and left out as many toxins therefore must be a healthy person'.

Same with looking at tribes or ancient history. You can claim which things are likely not bad like red-meat or dairy based on people not dieing form these things in nature, but to figure out what is workable you have to look at contemporary successes of failings, no matter where they match up with what you see in the past. You can't copy a tribe 100 years ago or 100000 years ago and expect you are going to do better than even some standard dieters today that have the right health practices, genetics, etc.. Heck people in nature did eat tons of dairy and/or honey and technically 0 known homo sapiens sapiens ate mostly raw meat and raw fruits.

And theres a difference between blanket faceless testimonials of some vegan site or like this site, and progress you can measure in a person you've kept in touch with for 2-3 years and seen where they've come or gone.

but if you are really in 'the body knows how to fix all its problems when you remove bad food' its kinda a non-starter of a conversation. I actually have a ton of PD criticisms to dish, but for all its wacky unprovable stuff, its in the ballpark at least with a number of its observations as far as healing people with tools and not evolutionary magic.

Yeah its fun to make up theories. In my near decade now of "health-book" reading and raw forum time-wasting, I have probably read every possible theory on eating, fasting, and natural healing. In that I've yet to come across a single person who can explain to me why you would want to limit yourself to what 'heathy' people did in nature to fix problems that these people wouldn't have had. Or someone who believed that limit was necessary who had much of anything positive to show for it over others, other than still being able to anonymously type on the internet. Cuz yeah, as we know in the real world, you can repair anything by just taking away the things you think damage it.

Here is one more likely reason. Following his instincts and natural eating and limiting to fruits and meats didn't work for him or his clients. If you start from a wide range of options and have problems with a particular approach, one can always do a more strict/i.e. 'paleo' version, fasting, urinating on themselves or whatever. But this is only true if people accept that this is one of many options. If they are sold on some cookie cutter version that the human race operates by while 100% neglecting reality, this isn't good. This is particularly important for when people have real life or death problems, and not a bunch of self-diagnosed diseases and 'cures' that flood diet forums.. PD (and of course WAPF) also carry a similar myopia at times, just less so compared to things we have no conclusive idea about, like what our original diet is and which aspects are most important to mirror or not.


bantu

neo

well, it could -diet wise- but theres quite a bit of differences in theory, particulary in the theories of disease and what are the greatest contributing factors.

they are totally similar in the ways that everyone else ^ completely misses the point. The answers being to all, that all that shit just works better. So if you have health issues (or just don't care to waste your time) you might want to go with things that work than what people with no preexisting health probems and a pristine environment could do to live more or less ok.

The peat stuff will give a sense the actual reasons perhaps AV would recommend what he does particularly with dairy. This is because healthy diets are high metabolism diets, and these require minerals like crazy. These arn't as present in modern 'paleo' diets, particularly those that don't employ bones and stocks (or tons of grains/veg which are problematic) and other things people in nature actually ate for those minerals. Also it would 'confirm' that people repairing shit need tons of constant proteins, minerals, and energy, and need fasting (metabolic ruin) and solvents (industrial mineral-poor water) like a hole in the head. Of course they disagree on salt, which is kind of a huge difference. Except when someone truly gets all their liquids from milk and juices and includes other sodium-veg/fruits, they would probably need salts.

Well yeah, whether we are talking peat, vegan, paleo..whatever, its pretty clear that even after flip flopping one thing after another people are always sure they have the answer. Think I tried to say that in my first post in the thread here...

At least its a put-up-or-shut-up type model with the peat stuff, which seems to me just way more trustworthy when testing your health against than the more faith-based natural hygiene-type cult hypothesizing within veganism/paleo where its all "yeah your doctor might even tell you that you have all the signs of AIDS...but this is just you comming out of the 'low grade fever' (98.6) of teh cooked foods".  Of course people here generally arn't that extreme (which is practically an actual quote i've seen elsewhere) and may have legit empirical stuff too, but you do see similar comments to the former - and other left-field hypothesis - I'd say pretty regularly here.

Even though we can argue about what ideal trigs and BG and such, theres some markers and just common sense stuff which obviously indicate things going better or worse and their departures from an ideal, yet people will still want to argue and make excuses. When you have actual examples of these not matching up with the good/bad in diet choices it should present a problem to the simple models people love to cling to, otherwise we are never talking science or rationality but religion.

So, to me this too goes both ways and applies to any theories, natural or otherwise. Even Einstein's stuff is seen to be both genius, compelling, overarching, and wrong in many ways. There does seem to be evidence that like...bacteria might be sort of important and so forth amongst probably alot of things the subjects here have going for it, that may be missing in other philosophies and 'improve them' as I think you might have been getting at. But at the end of the day, do the majority of people need to be hitting every last thing right to improve their health (to limit say, as many AGEs as possible from food) ? OR do they need to focus on the general trends and WOEs that keep the body from producing its own destructive patterns ( their own AGEs etc...)? I think ultimately seems to be the difference in ways of thinking.

Other than the people sold in medical model food pyramid stuff, most others are far too brainwashed in this weird "well if I don't do the "bad crap"..the body knows what to do!" - stuff, which certainly can work, but is almost always clouded in ignorance as to what true trends sustain health in the real world. Whereas when understanding more how things work objectively, it is less of a mystery why many things that seem healthy or natural templates actually are anything but, or could theoretically be healthy due to hitting a lot of the 'goods', but maybe just isn't the right particular solution.

Why does evolution have to be an underpinning for health? Peat is just claiming that health arrives from the organism functioning a certain way, you don't have to put evolution in there at all.

He probably hasn't done that, as, even if certain foods aren't replacing anything from paleolithic times, if they provide health, then that's what's important.

I personally do not see it as anti-evolutionary or whatever, just anti the idea that evolution and such is as static as some people insist on, despite ridiculous amounts of evidence showing the opposite, and since the term itself implies something not static...

I do think he has a sense and cares about what was needed and supplied in our natural environment and what is missing today from our eating or otherwise. This is particulary true in the ways some people choose to limit foods to X and Y based on some ideas and then call that a 'paleo' diet which likely is nothing like such whatsoever. Generally with every excuse in the book when its missing all kinds of crap or full of other crap because its "all natural". He's certaily spoken about it, whether its of utmost importance that foods need to match other foods, yeah probably not.

I'm sure when you get the larger points about whole animal protein, how pufas (in his research anyway) effect or inhibit various processes, the importance of and advantages of combining carbs/proteins etc...in terms of their real world effects, the other stuff loses more ground in terms of what our optimal 'blueprint' or whatever really is. We can spend our lifetime finding some peoples' here and there that ate entirely animal foods or mostly mongogo nuts without really seeing how these diets are working in the present day to produce a basic sex drive or pulse reading, and many alt-camps fall into this trap. We have people eating just fruits or sprouts or grainfed cooked meats or whatever, so the mere existing without meeting various markers for health, (particular when presenting a 'teh only' optimal vs disease type mindset) is also usually fairly useless information.

In terms of why one would make a 'peat' decision of coffee over raw cacao or  whatever, or even processed vs. whole, you'd have to read the material. Bringing up past cultures or past fictionlized 'paleos' only has limited value in the face of real world tweaks. Geneally the types of people who agree with that likely will sniff out more Peaty stuff, and the ones who insist on doing things 'all natural' are the ones who in my book shouldn't be needing to make any excuses about health markers and such as clearly they should be physiologically leaps and bounds over such 'nonsense'.  Usually not the case IME, but people just love their pet-theories of how looking healthy or having a high sex drive kills you and its fine to have kids that look like bird zombies or whatever, because that is likely how it should be without all the wrong stuff... Anyway, perhaps the importance of meeting his markers over others, or factors of 'toxicity' or whatever, or a lack of evidence of people doing well long term, is where I would be most critical too.

kinda agree with the above here. Generally stickies arn't composed top down only on forums so it just seems to be about writing something new or finding existing threads of relevance that could be stickied and/or moved. Folks seem amenable to that.

But also, yeah totally not many topics in complete agreement on this stuff and it seems far better to not promote much of anything as standard other then the very basics. People have very radically different perspectives within such a specific genre (and the few accepted tangent philosophies). I'm usually critical more since those few certain tangents are accepted here there ideally should be fairer freedom of expression within that, but the forum/mods is usually pretty good at routing out any irrelevant or totally outlying stuff for clarity purposes. Or its that it only attracts a certain type of person and also the occasional trolls, not sure. Plus there seems to be a trend of more respect with that as is. Anyway, Its automatically going to be slightly confusing when you have not one set ratio or disease theory or whatever that everyone on forum follows, and that likely is more ideal. Doesn't mean you can't write more clear points on things and see if they seem more relevant to be separated from other posts.



literally lol at "the overlord doesn't mind."

I'm guessing its fill-ins to a large degree. Thats why I made the AV comparison. Obviously people living on a beach in Papua New Guinea 5000 years ago is completely different, and didn't need to do much of this or that to be become healthier. Even if we were arguing transitioning from their cooking or whatnot in comparison to a modern person in current environment. Lack of minerals in foods or no longer having the ability to obtain them from change in our physiology or domesticity which limits or skews intake. In terms of 'paleo' It assumes a paradigm of eating smaller whole animals (or cooking/crushing large ones with big jaws), low-pufa seafoods, bugs, bones and organs, and ripe fruits as being essential components, so staying within that or replacing those with other sources is more essential than diets that just restrict to fruit, meat and vegetable.

Having now smaller jaws, change in out environment and gut environment etc..  make getting certain things more challenging particularly with one meal of fruit..one meal of muscle meat or whatever. Just missing a huge spectrum of stuff either in vitamins and minerals and excess of unbalanced unnatural composition of diet or just plain lack of food, for energy/overall functioning of his systems or such.

Alot also seems to be like a mix of those 2, reconsidering what is appropriate and optimizing based on present circumstances.   I think most of those things you listed are indeed considered sub-par to actual ripe fruits or honey. But citing certain fruits, or transit or storage of fruits, or just the fiber he claims cause more problems than those chemicals or whatever, and wouldn't in nature with pure guts/ proper internal stuff/totally ripe etc...

so probably optional, but its also about pushing calories, whole proteins and saturated fats + eating so regularly etc..which was why I wrote the first thing I did here. You could potentially skew things on perhaps either a raw or paleo diet, but when you start doing the breakdowns it becomes like...eating constantly with 2 eggshells daily, tons of honey, and pristine tree ripened low-PUFA fruits and exclusively whole sea creatures and coconuts or something if one wanted to do without boiling down or refining stuff or including dairy. Maybe entire ground up raw cows... anyway, it ultimately seems more important to follow those things already listed ^ than consider the other crap I guess.

good  j/k

the reasons for being blunt is simply that most people that come to these types of sites usually don't need more egging on to be more fringe or to go more extreme on taking out this and that, but that usually what they get. 1/3 of the posts here these days seem to be about Masons or something as is. Anyway, I don't discount those kinds of restrictions or radicalism as unimportant and likely can be helpful or necessary. Many things are extreme and also not necessarily wrong for it in my book. As an example, RP seems pretty extreme and just as ripe for neurosis and obsessiveness as any raw diet. Or following something like AV might be less extreme than paleo in some ways and way more extreme and obsessive in others. I personally don't get the anti-guru thing, never paid a guru and been fed just as much or more nonsense from people with nothing to gain. I think its sad when gurus or their followers clearly aren't living up to their own perfectionism and will still profess it as the only truth, but some just have interesting info or stuff that just makes sense or works measurably, no big deal.

---

I think anyone who claims raw or paleo isn't important or even inaccurate/bad - like peat essentialy does - obviously is going to get a great deal of flack here. I just don't think any kind of credentials would change that, probably would make it even more suspect, was basically what I had to say.

OK to eat a certain amount of off-plan foods.

Speaking not from my personal take, but the way I undersand it..its not so much on-diet off diet, but 'who gives a @&*&' if its not effecting the things he sees as important like minimizing pufa, tryptophan, keeping hormone levels optimal etc... If his or others notions of what heals metabolisms is wrong, thats more minor in a sense than the general point that these things and others deserve consideration when weighing the effectiveness of 'diets' or other overarching philosophies.

Ok, well I agree here somewhat. A good way to go about it is to see which common denominators are with this stuff and play the most angles. Having general awareness without expecting some kind of consensus or validation through the scientific literature, but also not playing the other approach of being able to dismiss every claim of researched problems of cooked bacon grease or low protein diets as big phrama/agra conspiracies.

Then again, theres always going to be lots of other arguments on specifics of all studies, from the obvious in how they are conducted, to equating types of processing with others or none, food quality, things eaten in context i.e. diets with other horrendous crap, then all the 'traditional peoples' shtick.

Still makes more sense to me to be aware of which things actually work to get the best results, rather than present how things should work in either a scientific or 'natural' model, and therefore take options off the table, which is what most people want to do. 'Science' or just general observation and critical thinking usually prevents this to some degree, so these things generally have to go out the window, at least when viewing raw or even paleo communities as a whole. Whether all Rays markers of pulse and such really matter I do not know, but if people present optimal approaches they should have better than average turnouts holistically, not just temporarily fix one or two ailments. In addition to all the non-conventional alt-health stuff which is probably ripe for criticism - like all fringe types - theres a simple point made though. That its very easy to leave out of many of the important specifics that were actually there in nature, or make assumptions that these factors are static or even most relevant, which are still at this point speculations.

Well of course I was BSing because people are totally hypocritical on this stuff. A few people want scientific evidence, but they want only the scientific evidence that backs up the claims they already believe. Most others - as you can readily see even on this forum of generally smarter raw foodists - can't wait to embrace anything that is not mainstream as the new holy grail and the fix to all their problems because yeah..they had already so carefully followed science to a T. Then dismissing how perhaps it might be better to maintain first the common sense stuff like having to have a functioning metabolism and hormones as a pre-requisite to health before thinking just 'removing stuff' heals you.

Unfortunately in the 'science' game you can find more articles to support hardcore veganism or at least not eating red meat, eating broccoli etc.. than any really making claims that lean meats and fruits contain all our needs. In fact there are 21 million 'citations' which is who knows how many articles on PubMed. This includes 8701 articles on coffee and an article called bust size and hitchhiking: a field study.

youre telling me you find more than .1 % of them to be accurate and reliable information on how the human body works, heals itself, which foods have the most useful antioxidants etc... despite the fact that one after the other says something entirely differnt? Surely we can pick a random 1000th of the articles there and they will support the majority of claims here.

With Peat or others, as soon as people have science based information that goes against their beliefs..or 'how I made up how nature works' these ideas are considered unacceptable and it could be completed by Harvard or any reputable agency. Don't see anyone here denying that.

 Other than that, just perusing the thread, most of the relevant points to this seem mentioned already. Pretty sure Peat is against grains and believes there obviously was a 'paleo' diet that was doable (even the inuits to some degree), just not as important or ideal as manipulating his thyroid hormones, oxidative metabolism, and 'real' paleo stuff like eating whole animal proteins and emphasizing minerals like calcium and zinc etc...

Just a different wacky way to look at things.

as a hint, maybe a good way to critique it is through the reliability of the experiments themselves he cites, but do not see how doing his own experiments within an academic environment would carry any more weight if the ideas were just as contrary. Don't think people are being honest if they say it would make any lick of a difference.

Why any of these 'experts' participate in nutrition discussion forums when they already have all the answers - 'answers' which implicitly aim to undermine the sharing of current information on nutrition to replace it with pure faith and fantasy- and not be referred to as trolls themselves, Is the real mystery.

Oh wait, people do love to sniff and then recycle their bullshit to believe it internally, thats the real human instinct apparently and one seen deeply in organized religion.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg40759/#msg40759

The ultimate truth IMO is that these folks and natural hygine raw vegans are one in the same in how they choose their 'truths' over others. Both prattle on about how this and that is toxic or wrong even in natural foods with little real evidence other than personal experience of un-healthy individuals. Both, usually have no real understanding of human physiology and substitute all kinds of conjectures and ultimately end up tipping their logic to some kind of natural paradigm guessing to apply to modern complex problems. Both spend most of their efforts online making-up excuses why their lifetimes of nonsense are well spent, and crafting fun theories why people *appear* healthy and fine on other diets, usually not taking time to even take a blood test, hormone panel, or even basic vitals and check if their diets do magically account for all their needs. Needs that others outside such dogmas can satisfy, but can become regular problems unecessarily. Both will knee-jerk against anything that seems foreign to their personal conception of nature which is rooted totally in the 20th century myopia of self-appointed gurus- and which virtually no experts on human anthropology or animals would agree is even accurate.

 Ironically these people should take responsibility for scarring people into the very extremes that they criticize, away from a balanced intake of foods, due to such similarities to long term raw vegans.

Pretty sure Iggy Pop knows more than most about mostly-veg nutrition as its always been practiced..like combining carbs with proteins, eating dairy for necessary calcium and minerals in lieu of bones/blood, emphasing regular vit A, sodium etc...

plays that skinny/cut look better than any natural hygiene proponent I've seen in their 40-60's anyway, even with all his body trashing. @ 64 he was looking pretty good on 'Idol'
---

I guess trolling (even smart trolling) is not ok tho.