Over 400 members!

[TylerDurden]

I see now that we have over 400 "official" members, and this after only c.15 months since this forum got started. Which is pretty good for a forum devoted to such an unusual subject-matter as raw(palaeo) foods. Over the next decade or so, I think it would be great if some of us did a bit of "outreach" re the media. A couple of us have already done interviews, and I'm sure it would help if people cited our forum as a source or linked to us etc. from time to time.

[PaleoPhil]

This raises some questions. How will you pay for the cost of expanded hosting capacity needed if a lot of people do come here? This site doesn't seem to generate any revenues.

Also, when I first learned about the Paleo diet I wanted to tell the world. But then I thought about it. Do we really want to spread this knowledge to the whole world? If even 10% of the world's population quickly adapted this diet it would overwhelm the capacity to supply it, drive prices of certain foods above the ability of any but the rich to afford and likely rapidly cause the extinction of several wild animal species like wild salmon. Grass fed beef and wild salmon are already expensive as it is and their prices continue to rise as the health benefits keep getting reported and more and more people consume them. Raw fruits and vegetables could handle a fairly large increase in demand (though the price of prime ones like berries would likely skyrocket with a spread of the RPD WOE), but probably not so much the pasture-fed and wild meats.

As long as only a tiny interested minority want to eat this way, it is sustainable. But if everyone tries to do it, it seems it will wreck it. Luckily, eating raw meats, fats and organs is so off-putting to most people that I don't think there will be excessive demand any time soon.

[wodgina]

Should be alright in wealthy countries. If meat was $200 a kg i would pay it.

[PaleoPhil]

Erm, but I'm not that wealthy  -- so I guess you're sacrificing me, eh?  Back to crap to eat for me?

[Raw Rob]

I think about this all the time, but then I just laugh because it just isn't going to happen. I could be wrong, but I think it usually takes a pretty bad sickness and an extremely open mind to come to this diet. Even if they have the former they will just listen to doctors most of the time. My own family witnessed the turn-around in my health on this diet and they haven't changed any of their practices.

Also, I live in Chicago and everything is about different cuisines. All of which are at odds with paleo. I feel like such an observer now, which is totally fine. It's just funny how differently I look at it all now. Some people feel bad for me at first when they remember I can't partake, but I always assure them it doesn't bother me at all anymore. I sort of feel bad for them because my diet is making me feel so good now.

I do hear more about the importance of grass-fed animals though. Maybe there could be a slow transition in that aspect. I suspect factory farms will be with us for some time though. They have such a powerful hold on the people.

[TylerDurden]

I'm afraid that the Cordain-inspired notion mentioned above is a very unlikely scenario.

Let's address them one by one:-


1) First of all, expanding the bandwidth, according to Craig the former owner, won't be an issue re finance until we reach c.10,000 members or so. We are a long way away from that.

2) Secondly, the main reason why we aren't easily able to get some types of foods such as certain organs like adrenals, marrow etc. is that there simply isn't a market for it, so farmers usually just throw them away with only a very few selling them, and then usually forcibly at a very low profit margin, given the lack of demand, so even those aren't too keen. You can be sure that if there was a substantial rise in the rawpalaeo community(say to 0.5% of each country's population), that farmers would bend over backwards to provide for that community. In the US, for example, I've seen a number of farms now deliberately stating on their website that they are primal-diet-friendly etc.(Northstar bison had that for a time but I think they removed it due to aajonus preferring to keep mention of PD his personal trademark or something).

3) Even if a lot of people went in for high quality raw foods, there'd still be plenty to go around. For example, it's been pointed out how 3rd-worlders have become very keen on growing organic fruit as they simply can't afford the very expensive pesticides needed for growing conventional fruit, and now that there are organic insecticides(not chemical-based), there are now good alternatives.

[wodgina]

Erm, but I'm not that wealthy  -- so I guess you're sacrificing me, eh?  Back to crap to eat for me?

I was referring to 3rd world...but hey it's dog eat dog 

I throw out so much food it's wrong but know one wants it. I get too much.

[PaleoPhil]

The unlikelihood of people being attracted to a RPD is just another reason for asking why contact the media about this? If people will only respond by ridiculing us, what's the point? And if on the other hand a lot of people are convinced, that could drive up prices of certain Paleo foods. Sure there would be some supplier adjustments, but increased demand generally causes increased prices over time. That's one of the basic laws of modern economics. So it seems like a lose-lose proposition. What would be the purpose of it?

I'm not sure what the best approach is myself, but I'm thinking it may be to remain passive and let those who are truly interested come here, and focus on building up FAQ files that will include counter-arguments to the inevitable attacks if the media ever get wind of this forum and the movement. Besides, people are less wary and skeptical if you're not out to sell them on something. Vegetarians are usually surprised and back off a little when they realize that I'm not interested in converting them and am actually thankful for their self-sacrifice (as long as they don't procreate too much--and luckily, in this country they tend to procreate less than avg, I believe).

Perhaps a sort of "intelligentsia" should be voluntarily formed that will try to work out how the world can move back to becoming more raw Paleo and low carb before we start blabbing to the world about it. In other words, think it through some more before advertising it. For the time being, this forum is the core of the intelligentsia and Lex and Tyler are probably its most knowledgeable thinkers, and have done some working out of the problems. I could be wrong, but I think it is a bit early yet for the advertising stage. When it is advertised, it should be: "This is going to be difficult, but we think we have some workable solutions for how the world can can begin moving back toward sustainable hunting and gathering and near equivalents (pasture-fed meats, etc.). I see the problem as even more difficult now that I believe that homo sapiens are very likely naturally carnivores (so that even organic fruit or gathering/foraging isn't hugely helpful).

[TylerDurden]

Even an all-meat diet worldwide would be sustainable assuming birth-control worldwide as well. After all, all-meat-eaters eat much less food kilo for kilo than others.

As regards the notion that people would ridicule us, that's meaningless. remember what the great philosopher arthur schopenhauer said, more or less:- "every truth goes through 3 stages:- first it is ridiculed, then it is violently attacked, and lastly it gets recognised as the  truth".

[PaleoPhil]

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess, Tyler.

OK, so what would the purpose of advertising the site be? Just to help others improve their health in a good Samaritan way?

[TylerDurden]

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess, Tyler.

OK, so what would the purpose of advertising the site be? Just to help others improve their health in a good Samaritan way?

The point is that the main group of people who are attracted to this kind of diet are those who've tried almost every other diet already and are still ill. When I first started searching for raw meat diets for humans it took me a couple of months to find anything as there was literally nothing online except Vinny Pinto's site and highly obscure references to the Primal Diet. Having more blogs and websites devoted to the diet all helps to attract such people, saving them from wasting lots of time beforte reaching us. My allexperts.com entry is just 1 example, among a number of other peoples' blogs etc. which have all helped in this regard.

As regards the media, you'd be surprised how much response that can generate. Some forums(admittedly devoted to more popular subjects) have, via just a few media articles, grown from as little as 15 members to 16,000 members in as little as 4 years. Personally, I like the notion of there being so many RVAFers in the population that people react to it no differently than if a RVAFer was a vegetarian.There'd be other benefits as well - there are already raw food restaurants for raw vegans, it's be great to have one for raw-meat-eaters as well, here and there.

[carnivore]

When there will be a severe food shortage, in a few years, people whith a "restricted diet" like us will have more problemes to survive than people who eat rice, potatoes and cans. Unless doing stocks of pemmican!

Instead of hiding RPD, a better strategy for the future is to go toward more autonomy, like breeding animals, etc.

 

This raises some questions. How will you pay for the cost of expanded hosting capacity needed if a lot of people do come here? This site doesn't seem to generate any revenues.

Also, when I first learned about the Paleo diet I wanted to tell the world. But then I thought about it. Do we really want to spread this knowledge to the whole world? If even 10% of the world's population quickly adapted this diet it would overwhelm the capacity to supply it, drive prices of certain foods above the ability of any but the rich to afford and likely rapidly cause the extinction of several wild animal species like wild salmon. Grass fed beef and wild salmon are already expensive as it is and their prices continue to rise as the health benefits keep getting reported and more and more people consume them. Raw fruits and vegetables could handle a fairly large increase in demand (though the price of prime ones like berries would likely skyrocket with a spread of the RPD WOE), but probably not so much the pasture-fed and wild meats.

As long as only a tiny interested minority want to eat this way, it is sustainable. But if everyone tries to do it, it seems it will wreck it. Luckily, eating raw meats, fats and organs is so off-putting to most people that I don't think there will be excessive demand any time soon.

[TylerDurden]

Malthus always overstimated the human ingenuity at creating new kinds of foods. Even if world population kept increasing, scientists would resort to growing algae in hydroponic tanks, feeding populations on insects on a mass scale(doable) or simply creating artificial food(like the artificial muscle-cells created recently). Naturally, most people switching to such diets will end up in appalling health, with a very small minority(us) eating healthily.

Re diet-promotion:- This is vital. It's a known fact that a diet generally only survives for c.7 years after the last book on that specific type of diet has been published. So, for example, the fact that Aajonus has released 2nd editions of his books relatively recently, has helped enormously to boost interest. Similiarly, if people do blogs/media-interviews etc. it all keeps the community alive. Ideally, of course, I'd like regular meetups, starting in the California area where the largest number of RVAFers are, then progressing until virtually every country has at least 1 large RVAF meetup a year at least.

[PaleoPhil]

More raw meat and sashimi restaurants and less social stigma would be nice, yes. If this could happen without driving up prices or causing shortages and extinctions, it would be nice. I hope you're right that it is possible. Better management of wild and domestic food animals is definitely a critical future task for humanity.

Malthus always overstimated the human ingenuity at creating new kinds of foods.

Creating new kinds of foods is the problem, not the solution. It's new kinds of foods (agrarian and industrialized) that gave us the diseases of civilization and enabled further overpopulation that would boggle the mind of Malthus in the first place. It's the oldest kind of foods that are the healthiest.

Even if world population kept increasing, scientists would resort to growing alage in hydroponic tanks,

You can have the algae. At best I suspect that it is a supplemental or starvation food, rather than a healthy staple.

feeding populations on insects on a mass scale(doable) or simply creating artificial food(like the artificial muscle-cells created recently).

Yes, I agree that re-introducing OLD kinds of fauna foods and trying to find more efficient ways of harvesting them in a sustainable way is part of the solution. Ray Audette suggested that farming insects like termites might be a big part of the solution. So far, no one has figured out a way to do it, that I know of, but it is an interesting idea.

Naturally, most people switching to such diets will end up in appalling health, with a very small minority(us) eating healthily.

And that brings us back to the contradiction--if only a very small minority of people are going to eat this way, it would seem to be futile to put significant effort into advertising it. You seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it to, arguing both that there will always be plentiful cheap RPD foods available because only a very tiny minority will ever want them, while at the same time it will become a popular, well-respected WOE that will be offered at a significant number of restaurants. Can you resolve this seeming contradiction? Is the idea to try to keep that tiny minority large enough that it will not die out completely?

Re diet-promotion:- This is vital. It's a known fact that a diet generally only survives for c.7 years after the last book on that specific type of diet has been published. So, for example, the fact that Aajonus has released 2nd editions of his books...[.quote]
Yes, I am aware that diet books and gurus to fade out pretty quickly. The history of low carb diets that Audette, Taubes and others recounted testifies to that. This is why I think the hope for the future lies not with diet books and gurus, but with the science. The field of Paleolithic/evolutionary nutrition and medicine has grown even as the sales of NeanderThin, The Paleo Diet and We Want to Live fade.

Dieters get frustrated because the scientists don't get everything right immediately, but neither do the diet gurus and books. Besides, science is not about perfection, it is about experimenting and learning. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get funding for such profitless fields as evolutionary nutrition. So if anything positive can come out of advertising the RPD it might be raising funds for research in the field, creating an international nonprofit foundation to help fund it, gather the findings, etc.

Similiarly, if people do blogs/media-interviews etc. it all keeps the community alive. Ideally, of course, I'd like regular meetups, starting in the California area where the largest number of RVAFers are, then progressing until virtually every country has at least 1 large RVAF meetup a year at least.

Internet groups indeed do more to spread the word and keep the movement alive than the books and gurus, because they are not limited to the lifespans of books and the Internet has a more global reach. I guess I assumed that the health benefits of RPD and similar diets would keep them alive indefinitely on the Internet, but I suppose there is a small possibility that the movement might die out completely if both the online community and the scientific field wither away and there aren't some efforts to advertise it now and then. The community does inspire and support the science, and helped to bring like-thinking scientists together to collaborate on research (some of them first met on the PaleoDiet discussion group, I believe). So that reason for advertising does make sense to me.

[TylerDurden]

And that brings us back to the contradiction--if only a very small minority of people are going to eat this way, it would seem to be futile to put significant effort into advertising it. You seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it to, arguing both that there will always be plentiful cheap RPD foods available because only a very tiny minority will ever want them, while at the same time it will become a popular, well-respected WOE that will be offered at a significant number of restaurants. Can you resolve this seeming contradiction? Is the idea to try to keep that tiny minority large enough that it will not die out completely?
Internet groups indeed do more to spread the word and keep the movement alive than the books and gurus, because they are not limited to the lifespans of books and the Internet has a more global reach. I guess I assumed that the health benefits of RPD and similar diets would keep them alive indefinitely on the Internet, but I suppose there is a small possibility that the movement might die out completely if both the online community and the scientific field wither away and there aren't some efforts to advertise it now and then. The community does inspire and support the science, and helped to bring like-thinking scientists together to collaborate on research (some of them first met on the PaleoDiet discussion group, I believe). So that reason for advertising does make sense to me.

There's no way in hell that anyone could promote this diet so that  a sizeable proportion of the population are rawpalaeo. There are so many culturally-ingrained attitudes in favour of cooked-foods etc. so that only those who are very ill and desperate would even consider this diet. And even, among those, there would be many who would ultimately prefer the quick(if pisspoor) fix of pharmaceutical drugs to spending years recovering on a really strange diet. Since there will never be more than 0.5% of the population who would even consider this sort of diet, there's no reason to worry re food-shortages. Plus, any RVAFers with initiative can look out for other (cheaper) high-quality foods than just organic/grassfed beef, if they just look around a little bit.

[PaleoPhil]

There's no way in hell that anyone could promote this diet so that  a sizeable proportion of the population are rawpalaeo.

Again, so then what is the purpose of the advertising if so few will be attracted by it and many might actually be turned off by it and come here just to harass us?

I could see the potential for very limited and narrowly targeted advertising as a way of keeping the forum and the movement alive, using subtle techniques, such as Lex Rooker has (whether it was designed to attract people here or not)--posting about pemmican in the Zero Carb forum, which is what brought me here. That sort of advertising makes sense to me.

I'm not sure that advertising in the media makes as much sense. As you said, not many people are going to be attracted to this WOE and most will be turned off by it. Maybe even enough to come here and harass us as trolls. The only reason that the media covers Aajonus is to make fun of him. They put him on TV and ridiculed him as a laughing stock. At least he makes some money off the small number of people that see him who decide to buy his books--so for him any advertising is good, even negative advertising. I'm not sure that the same holds true for us, because we won't be generating any revenues from it to fund the site or scientific research in the field, unless there are plans in that area too.

Of course, you're free to do whatever you want. I'm just curious about the purpose because this is my favorite forum and I'd hate to see it affected negatively by trolls or other potential problems.

[TylerDurden]

We've had the same percentage of trolls as in any other forum, despite media-interviews and other promotion. At any rate, other than expanding membership(which has worked; after all no other raw animal food-related forum is doing as well as we are), there is a need to force people to accept us. That makes it easier to obtain certain unusual types of raw organ-meats in the market-place and helps us avoid being treated like 2nd-class citizens when dealing with food-suppliers etc. And you'd be surprised how positive the reception can be. For example, I read the comments made after 1 RVAF media-interview(only 12 were allowed due to media censorship and the interview itself had been deliberately twisted to make fun of us), and half of the comments were actually in favour of us, mentioning that the Inuit all ate raw meat etc.

In short, even negative publicity is always good publicity.

[PaleoPhil]

...there is a need to force people to accept us. That makes it easier to obtain certain unusual types of raw organ-meats in the market-place and helps us avoid being treated like 2nd-class citizens when dealing with food-suppliers etc.

It's not my style to force my views on others, but I recognize that every revolution has in-your-face aggressive radicals who use those sorts of tactics, so it appears to be inevitable and I guess I should resign myself to that fact.

And you'd be surprised how positive the reception can be. For example, I read the comments made after 1 RVAF media-interview(only 12 were allowed due to media censorship and the interview itself had been deliberately twisted to make fun of us), and half of the comments were actually in favour of us, mentioning that the Inuit all ate raw meat etc.

It's good to hear that even though the media seek only to make laughing stocks of us, that at least 12 people saw through it and that the forum wasn't hit hard by trolls as a result.

In short, even negative publicity is always good publicity.

Again, I think that negative publicity is good if some good is gained out of it (I have used your quote myself when it comes to getting customers for little-known products and companies, for example, and the "good" is the sales it generates). If it does help get things like brains available in markets again, then it's worth it. Thanks for explaining the good you're trying to get out of it.

[RawZi]

And even, among those, there would be many who would ultimately prefer the quick(if pisspoor) fix of pharmaceutical drugs to spending years recovering on a really strange diet.

    I'd prefer a quick fix.  I tried it first, for a year and a half.  They nearly killed me with their simple prescriptions.  They weren't bad doctors, and my insurance was pretty decent, that wasn't it.  There's not always an easy way, or better put:  RAF may be the easiest way.  Not that it's necessarily easy to get the foods, but in some situations it's the only way to live.

    Advertising, IDK, word of mouth is best in many situations.  Advertising might be good here.

   

[TylerDurden]

We're already nearing 500 members(it will be at least 500 by November 5th, which is 18 months after this forum first started). Very good work. I still think it would help if more people did media interviews and the like. People can even do things on a smaller scale, such as, if they're on other forums, they can include the website-address of rawpaleoforum in their signature, so that every post features rawpaleoforum at the bottom).

I am currently doing a review for rawpaleodiet.com of Loren Cordain's PaleoDiet. I'll finish it by the end of the week, most likely. I have still to do the new Wrangham book(I hate to give it publicity as Wrangham is already viewed as a fraud by the mainstream scientific community but there is a fringe, fanatical pro-Wrangham group among non-scientific laymen, so...)There's also Weston-Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and Gary Taubes' book Good Calories/Bad Calories which need a slash'n'burn review to correct some uncritical assumptions in the RVAF community, then there's Michael Eades' main book and Aajonus 2 books as well to do, all of which I hope to review by 6-10 months from now. Pity there's no official rawpaleodiet book.

[goodsamaritan]

There will soon be a raw paleo diet book co authored by all of us.  It will happen.  You get top billing 

[PaleoPhil]

Since there will never be more than 0.5% of the population who would even consider this sort of diet, there's no reason to worry re food-shortages.

People don't have to eat raw to eat "Paleo", so as more people eat Paleo and low-carb diets focused on grassfed and wild meats/fish, it will be very easy for shortages to occur in foods that people here eat.

Wild salmon is one food I mentioned before that has been growing increasingly scarce and expensive as the health info about it spreads (though it luckily took a slight recent dip in price where I bought it--but its bound to resume its upward climb at some point) and now another food that some here eat has become increasingly scarce in Scandinavia--butter. Butter is not Paleo, though it is Primal per Aajonus' definition and also acceptable to raw WAPFers and some Paleo diet gurus (such as Mark Sisson). Check it out:

Worldwide Butter Shortage?
by Seth Roberts
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/12/11/worldwide-butter-shortage/

The first sentence of this article is:

The soaring popularity of a fat-rich fad diet has depleted stocks of butter in Norway creating a looming Christmas culinary crisis.

Except it’s not a fad diet. It’s not going to go away, I predict. I eat lots of butter because I discovered it made my brain work better than a similar amount of pork fat. Pork fat made me sleep better. Desire for better sleep and a better-working brain are not desires that come and go. I haven’t even mentioned the conventional benefits (e.g., weight loss). The article continues:

Norwegians have eaten up the country’s entire stockpile of butter, partly as the result of a “low-carb” diet sweeping the Nordic nation which emphasizes a higher intake of fats.

“Sales all of a sudden just soared, 20 percent in October then 30 percent in November,” said Lars Galtung, the head of communications at TINE, the country’s biggest farmer-owned cooperative. . . .

Butter is now selling on Norway’s top auction website, with a 250-gram piece starting at around $13 (8.28 pounds), roughly four times its normal price.

At the Beijing store closest to me that sells butter, I seem to buy more butter than all other customers combined. Chairman Mao noticed the value of pork fat. What happens when the Chinese realize the value of butter? ....

You can't say I didn't warn about this sort of thing, and there is likely to be more to come as Paleo and low carb diets become increasingly popular.

[CitrusHigh]

$1.60 a lb? that's ridiculous, especially at four times it's usual cost. Unless that is Norwegian currency.

Salmon is not sustainable as it's currently fished. I recommend the book "Four Fish" to put our fisheries in perspective. I don't agree with the author's ideas, because he thinks that there is a safe way to farm fish if done properly, but he does a good job of highlighting the impact we've had on wild fisheries, and it's pretty fucked up.

I would agree that fish can be farmed properly, the right fish, being fed the right food and being managed properly, but that is by and large NOT the case. Most are fed at best, cooked pellets (of other wild caught bait fish of all retarded things), and at worst, things like artificial dyes and hydrolyzed (dissolved) poultry feathers. Also the farmed, genetically manipulated or bred versions get away and wreak havoc on wild populations and other species. And their waste accumulates and causes algal blooms which kill ecosystems.

Sustainable aqua farming would be closed systems where several edible or useful species are used to feed eachother wholesome natural diets without a net loss of energy from the sea. Also these fish shouldn't be selectively bred. Instead of selective breeding, we must begin with fish that fit our criteria instead of trying to force already popular species in to our desired mold.

[TylerDurden]

The trouble is that giving farmed fish decent food usually means giving them lots of wildcaught fish, which just exacerbates the damage done to wildlife in the sea. That said, farming shellfish like mussels and oysters does no real harm, since they just filter nutrients from their surroundings. The only issue is to make sure they are farmed in unpolluted waters and are only farmed during specific seasons of the year.
`
Re PP:- The Scandinavian example  re butter  is really, really bad since Scandinavia is a tiny, little-populated area(Sweden 8 million, Norway 4 million etc., last I checked). Therefore sudden diet crazes(temporary as they are) would, inevitably, suddenly create shortages of certain foods which would swiftly be dealt with by sudden reorganisations of business etc.

Anyway, we previously successfully countered your Malthusian doomsayings by pointing out that  almost all farmers, nowadays, throw away all their raw organ-meats because no one wants them. If cooked-palaeodieters were suddenly on the increase, demand for such organ-meats would rise, and would be easily filled. Plus, cooked-palaeodieters have wisely pointed out that large areas of the world are simply unsuitable for farming, only being suitable for pasturing herds of animals like goast etc. (himalayas etc.)

[PaleoPhil]

Re PP:- The Scandinavian example  re butter  is really, really bad since Scandinavia is a tiny, little-populated area(Sweden 8 million, Norway 4 million etc., last I checked). Therefore sudden diet crazes(temporary as they are) would, inevitably, suddenly create shortages of certain foods which would swiftly be dealt with by sudden reorganisations of business etc.

Wasn't Seth Roberts' point that if larger nations like China develop anything like the Norwegian craze that it could have a tremendous impact on foods like butter? After all, the Chinese demand for shark's fin soup has reportedly been decimating wild shark populations. It seems to me that the biggest future problem that Paleo diets (raw and cooked) will face is Paleo foods becoming TOO popular and this seems to be generally underestimated here, though switching to more efficient production methods, such as employed at Polyface Farms, could help with domesticated animal food supply--not so much with wild species supply, unfortunately.

Anyway, we previously successfully countered your Malthusian doomsayings ...

LOL, thanks for the usual humorous over-the-top language. Quite entertaining.