Hi!.. and some questions??

[DarkMonk81]

Hi, I just wanted to introduce myself and ask a few questions, I'm a complete newb at this site and have only been eating a basically entirety omnivorous raw paleo diet for like 8 months or so... but I actually joined the forum because I have a some questions about diet concerning my girlfriend. She's been on this diet for years but is apparently 4.5 months pregnant.

The first question is that normal to have so few signs of pregnancy (ie. morning sickness etc.) on this kind of diet?? Also has anyone actually done this???... Like, go through the pregnancy and then raise a child on raw meats?? Any pointers that could lead us in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry if any of this has been answered before...and thanks in advance!

[cherimoya_kid]

Congrats on the pregnancy!

I have a 7-month-old baby that I plan to feed a mostly-raw paleo diet after she is off breast milk. Her mother ate a mostly raw-paleo diet while pregnant, and still does. Lots of fish eggs, seafoods, etc.. The baby is very happy and healthy.

Guy-Claude Burger, French raw food guru and inventor of the Instinctivore diet, raised his youngest 2 or 3 kids on a raw paleo diet. They are all grown and quite healthy, as far as I know.

My wife had pretty bad morning sickness, but that's more common with girls than boys. You're probably getting a boy. Have you had an ultrasound yet?

[nummi]

Isn't ultrasound harmful?

[eveheart]

I never had morning sickness with two boys and one girl. I don't think it means that the woman is unhealthy, not that I know for sure, but there are so many changes going on at the beginning of pregnancy. I "felt" being pregnant right away, within a week of conception, and I couldn't put my finger on what I felt, but I was right three out of three times.

We didn't use routine ultrasound back then.

[cherimoya_kid]

Isn't ultrasound harmful?

No.

[nummi]

No.

But that's wrong...
Highly concentrated sound frequencies that penetrate and affect a growing organism and it's bearer. What frequencies are they using and how do they effect the body?
Basically the same thing as is with vaccines. They claim it is harmless, but in actual reality is highly harmful.

[cherimoya_kid]

But that's wrong...
Highly concentrated sound frequencies that penetrate and affect a growing organism and it's bearer. What frequencies are they using and how do they effect the body?
Basically the same thing as is with vaccines. They claim it is harmless, but in actual reality is highly harmful.

There are plenty of proven cases of vaccines causing harm. There's even a vaccine court in the US that compensates people who have suffered harm from vaccines. There are NO proven cases of ultrasound harm that I am aware of, whereas there are many thousands with vaccines. Unless you can link to actual proof, the kind that degreed scientists would agree with as a consensus, I ask that you not throw this thread off-topic any longer.

[JeuneKoq]

I concur with CK. While X-rays have been proven to be the cause of some radiation-related illnesses due to long exposure, I have never heard of people getting ill from ultrasounds. Not saying that it's absolutely harmless, but IMO the method is pretty safe to use. It's probably a matter of doses and duration of exposure, as it is for many things..

[nummi]

I concur with CK. While X-rays have been proven to be the cause of some radiation-related illnesses due to long exposure, I have never heard of people getting ill from ultrasounds. Not saying that it's absolutely harmless, but IMO the method is pretty safe to use. It's probably a matter of doses and duration of exposure, as it is for many things..

Since there are fully harmless methods, using something harmful even in "low doses" is not justified.
Plus some individuals are far more sensitive, thus deeper harm done. And using it on children growing in the womb?? They don't really have any resistance to anything other than that what the mother can provide... Not a time, at all, to subject an organism to influences that can penetrate natural defenses with such ease.

Sound frequencies can be used to levitate matter, to molecularly break apart anything, to boil, to vaporize, to bend, twist, etc. So what frequencies are they using and how do they affect the body? Considering ultrasound is a tool of "modern medicine" then it is foolish to say it is harmless or has insignificant effect, especially considering the fact that we don't really know how the devices are designed. Nor how the frequencies affect a human body, not to mention a fetus.

Unless you can link to actual proof, the kind that degreed scientists would agree with as a consensus, I ask that you not throw this thread off-topic any longer.

Off-topic any longer? Hasn't been long and I kept it short, till now. So why such a comment "any longer"?? Seems to me you yearn for and need some extra, considering the "weak" hostility you show... Anyway, after the response you now gave. No... things to say you need to understand (which you probably won't).

So, what frequencies are they using and how do they affect the body? You don't know, yet you say it is harmless... While at the same time knowing, somewhat, how much "mainstream" world lies about a lot. You don't have even a slightest doubt about ultrasound?

So you would rather prefer I preach the opinions of some other people (whose opinions are based on yet other people) who also very highly likely are biased in regards to reality as a whole in the first place, instead of my own personal opinions? I've participated enough in such nonsense in the past... giving others' opinions instead of my own, myself learning essentially nothing in the process (until I did learn) and seeing how others make the same mistake over an over without learning from it... Now I only refer to what I personally actually possess in my own mind, and if I am not aware of something then I do my own personal research before ever asking others for "proof". I convey only what I personally actually understand and know and see, and not the opinions of some other people. Why ever ask someone for the opinions of others? Arguments and such between people are not about exchanging the opinions of people from outside the specific argument, all of which requires some essential pre-knowledge and awareness of the topic and possibilities regarding it and a critical and rational mind to think over it (unless the argument is specifically about the opinions of outside people and their minds).
From me all you'll ever get is my own.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of people constantly referring to others' opinions for "proof" actually gave their own personal (and evolving) opinions? And thus could actually see where they and others are personally mentally at? If you cannot forward the outside opinion you are referring to from within yourself, from your own mind, though your own understanding, with your own words, then you do not possess the understanding or knowledge of what you are trying to talk about.

"Off topic"... I asked a simple question regarding an "off topic" remark you made, and you managed to answer it wrong. Then I pointed out a few further things. And then you gave a rather irrational response (I do like bringing out irrationality and mistakes, including my own to myself).
You want a stop... Yet instead of stopping you gave an answer lacking in rational thinking (the "give me proof")...
If all you do is give the opinions of others and expect the opinions of others from other people, and want to "refute" the opinions of others with opinions of others (where are your own??), then you essentially never evolve mentally. Because you never really give anything of yourself, and so you never see your own flaws and mistakes, and thus you'll never correct them. I make my own mind, I say my own mind.

You're not aware that ultrasound at least might be harmful? And thus you ask me for "proof"? If I see someone saying something I'm not aware of I do my own research on it. I don't ask for proof before doing my own research, or when I don't really know anything about it. You want material about ultrasound being harmful? Then go ahead, "google" it.

You do realize you are trying to use your own ignorance against my suggestions? The first question I asked should've sparked curiosity and thus given an answer other than just "no". Because you are not aware. If you're not aware, then why say "no". You say "no" based on what? Ignorance, unawareness... Why would you do that?

My goal was to simply point out that ultrasound is not harmless. Didn't expect you to be completely unaware, and persistently so...

[JeuneKoq]

Time to breath in, Nummi. Yeeeesh....

Bet you even scared soon-to-be-father DM81 away 

My dog got an ultrasound a few days ago and she still looks healthy as ever. It seems like she'll be bringing four pups home! It's her first pregnancy too. Hopefully the puppies won't turn out to be highly deformed and mentally defective because of it... Only time will tell...

When I'll learn interspecie communication I'll ask her how she felt about the ultrasounds 


Moral of the story: since there is nothing out there yet proving ultrasounds actually are harmful, if you don't trust them, just don't get any done.

[cherimoya_kid]

Nummi, if you have proof, OFFER IT. Otherwise, we've heard enough.

[Alive]

Ultrasound Affects Embryonic Mouse Brain Development
http://news.yale.edu/2006/08/07/ultrasound-affects-embryonic-mouse-brain-development

[eveheart]

Ultrasound Affects Embryonic Mouse Brain Development
http://news.yale.edu/2006/08/07/ultrasound-affects-embryonic-mouse-brain-development

[from the article cited] ...The prolonged and frequent use of ultrasound on pregnant mice causes brain abnormalities in the developing mouse fetus

Yeah, I'd definitely avoid prolonged and frequent use of ultrasound on human fetuses. Obstetricians who use ultrasound aren't trying to determine the baby's gender, although that feature does interest many parents-to-be. The doctor or midwife has a whole list of "rule-outs" when requesting an ultrasound. You can opt out of the doctoring/midwifery, or maybe discuss an opt-out with your doctor/midwife, but the actual exam is very short and wouldn't parallel the prolonged and frequent use of ultrasound in the rodent study.

[cherimoya_kid]

Well-said, eve. I personally have found this diet to be very robustifying, and it mystifies me when people LOOK for things to freak out about, like EMF exposure, ultrasound, etc.. I want to be able to live a normal life. Granted, individual people can have specific sensitivities, but I think a great deal of this stuff is psychosomatic and verging on mental illness. It's damn silly, is what it is.

[eveheart]

Speaking of prolonged and frequent exposure to environmental influences, the fetus is constantly bathed in the mother's emotional chemical and electrical changes. A pregnant mother who entertains thoughts of the worst things happening in her pregnancy is transmitting fearful, tense, apprehensive emotions to her fetus. It's important to contemplate beautiful, peaceful, loving thoughts during pregnancy. Seeing those darling little facial features on the ultrasound pictures (I saw those pics of my grandchildren) virtually floods the mother-to-be with tender emotions.

[cherimoya_kid]

Good point, eve. It does get those love hormones and chemicals going.

[DarkMonk81]

LOL!!! Thanks for the reply's plus all the extra info on x-rays & ultrasounds!! 

It's pretty amazing to know others are doing or have done this as well... Any ideas on feeding new babies after they ween. I mean I started with organs mostly, would it be the same for a child?

And... does anybody know about this whole Vitamin-A thing? I have been told organs especially liver can be harmful too a growing child... Anyone know if there's any truth to that?

[eveheart]

Any ideas on feeding new babies after they ween. I mean I started with organs mostly, would it be the same for a child?

I weaned three children when they started grabbing for my food. (They were in my lap when I ate.) Their ages of this type of weaning ranged from 5 months to 11 months. I take this to mean: "Don't let your pediatrician or mother-in-law tell you when to introduce solids." My kids were on breast milk only at all other times. So, they ate whatever their dad or I ate. If they didn't like something, they just didn't eat it. Babies get "used to" the family's foods through breast milk, so they really don't object to eating it. If the food is too big for them, they just gum it when they grab it. It is helpful for the parent to pre-chew the food and then give it to the child. They also sell nice little baby food grinders for the more-modern parent.

And... does anybody know about this whole Vitamin-A thing? I have been told organs especially liver can be harmful too a growing child... Anyone know if there's any truth to that?

The whole vitamin A thing is complex. There are some people who go overboard by cooking their foods so that the natural stop is completely masked. Other people gulp down high dosages of supplements, which have no stop at all.

Vitamin A is a "oil-based" vitamin. It is circulated, used, and stored in the body. Any excess is not eliminated in the urine, as would be the case with "water-based" vitamins. So, vitamin A can build up. If someone is overdoing vitamin A, the result is a vitamin-A thing.

I eat raw liver. I can hardly imagine overeating it because, for me, it goes from so-delicious to ugh-no-more easily. (That's the stop.) Nature "kind of" recommends portions of liver when it puts a 1 kg liver in a 50 kg carcass. (Please don't use that ratio instead of the stop and say that eveheart says so.)

[JeuneKoq]

A colleague of Guy-Claude Burger (founder of the Instincto movement) ,and himself I believe experimented with raw foods and the dietary senses with their children. Even before giving the mother's milk to its newborn child, GCB's colleague took small pieces of various foods (fruits, vegetables, and meat if I remember correctly) and passed them under the child's nose. When a food seemed appetizing, aka appropriate to the infant's needs, the child simply opened its mouth as to receive the piece of food. If it didn't seem appealing, or if the infant had enough, it would simply keep it's mouth shut.

Note: Their children ended up just fine. Great actually.

You can experiment the same if you'd like. You just need to trust your child's intact sensory system in choosing what food best suits its immediate bodily need. AS LONG AS YOU'RE ONLY OFFERING UNPROCESSED RAW FOODs of course*, in the strictest sense of the word. Otherwise the processed food might (will!) disrupt its dietary "instinct"/senses, and the child might end up overeating, loose appeal for raw foods etc...
Mother's milk is still top choice 


I had a discussion with GCB's colleague on the french Instincto forum, and I pointed out the fact that infants might not be attracted to foods that needs chewing, for the simple reason that infants lack the necessary teeth.

Aside from that it seems like tong kissing, or french kissing, might derive from a similar origin to the act of mouth feeding. Both act are similar in the sense that they both support social bonds between two individuals, and help exchange healthy microorganisms. Human mouth feeding might've been a way to feed an infant with hard foods in a time when baby formulas, purees, and simply soft cooked foods did not exist.

*for the duration of the experiment, which can become indefinite, if you're willing to take this path...


Here's a video of a celebrity mouth-feeding her son:
Alicia Silverstone Mouth To Mouth Feeding Her Baby Bear Blu


Quite interesting video on the act of kissing (talks about mouth-feeding in the first part)
Why Do We Kiss?

[cherimoya_kid]

Just a short note--babies aren't any better at chewing and swallowing raw food than cooked food. They need several months to figure it out. I found this out with my younger daughter recently.

[cherimoya_kid]

It's pretty amazing to know others are doing or have done this as well... Any ideas on feeding new babies after they ween. I mean I started with organs mostly, would it be the same for a child?

I started my baby on banana and avocado. Most of it ends up on her bib or clothes, anyway, so I'm not going to waste good organ meat on teaching her to chew and swallow. She can have organs after she has got the mechanics of eating under her belt, so to speak.

[eveheart]

That's so cool, JK! All my children and grandchildren sniff food before eating it. We did mouth-feeding, too, but didn't have a name for it. Even now, my youngest grandchild (age 1 1/2) will dive in to my mouth with her fingers and pull out something she wants that I am eating. She already has teeth.

[political atheist]

We the elite, ABSOLUTELY love when you the slaves inject in your body our ''blessings''.

[JeuneKoq]

That's so cool, JK! All my children and grandchildren sniff food before eating it. We did mouth-feeding, too, but didn't have a name for it. Even now, my youngest grandchild (age 1 1/2) will dive in to my mouth with her fingers and pull out something she wants that I am eating. She already has teeth.

That's smart kids and grand-kids you have Eve I remember a time when sniffing your food was considered disrespectful to the cook (my mother). How else was I supposed to know if the food was safe to eat?

[eveheart]

I remember a time when sniffing your food was considered disrespectful to the cook (my mother).

There is a polite way and an impolite way to sniff food.

IMPOLITE: Sniff deeply while making a suspicious facial expression. And if you don't like the smell, wrinkle your nose and loudly say, "Ewwww!"

POLITE: Sniff with a half-smile and serene facial expression. And if you don't like the smell, keep the verdict to yourself. If your mother has sensitive feelings, murmur an approving sound. (It is permissible to tell a white lie to compliment your mother.)

And always carry the food to your nose with a culturally appropriate eating utensil.