I just thought I'd say hello ...

[Stig of the Dump]

Although the shop was expensive, I've looked up the receipt, and the sardines and herring were phenomenally cheap -38p for four sardines and 56p for one herring.

I'm now quite sure they were wild.  According to this article in the NY Times, wild sardines are so plentiful and cheap they are used as food in salmon farms:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/weekinreview/16bittman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Why bother with farm-raised salmon and its relatives? If the world’s wealthier fish-eaters began to appreciate wild sardines, anchovies, herring and the like, we would be less inclined to feed them to salmon raised in fish farms. And we’d be helping restock the seas with larger species.

I've looked up fish farms on wikipedia and all the popular fish farm types are mentioned, but herring and sardines are unmentioned.  I looked up sardines on wikipedia and it only described ocean fishing.

I think that wraps it up for me.

[roony]

Kwl, i still wont be eating them, not eating fish with that high mercury content, even raw, i prefer whitebait but need to chck its mercury content

hmm, anyone know small fish with edible bones?

[miles]

I don't know if it was correct, but TD posted something to do with mercury not being a problem from raw fish. Again, I didn't actually read the link, and don't know if there was anything to it.

The bones in the raw sardines I ate weren't edible...

[roony]

I don't know if it was correct, but TD posted something to do with mercury not being a problem from raw fish. Again, I didn't actually read the link, and don't know if there was anything to it.

The bones in the raw sardines I ate weren't edible...

Yes i know what he's referring to, but im not ingesting 5-10% mercury, i'd rather ingest a low mercury fish & ingest 1-2% mercury, sardines can go contaminate vegans for all i care

[Stig of the Dump]

This is not true, and your figures make no sense.

Fish concentrate mercury by being high up in the predator chain, for example sharks (0.988 parts per million), swordfish (0.976 ppm), King Mackerel (0.730 ppm).  Sardines are extremely low in the pecking order, and have typical mercury concentrations of 0.016ppm, certainly amongst the lowest levels for all sea fish.

Here is a mercury calculator:

http://www.gotmercury.org/

Roony, I don't like to pick on someone, but you seem to just make things up.  It isn't helpful when some people are coming here with real health issues, seeking true information.  Perhaps if you want to make something up, just preface it with "I think" instead of stating it as a known fact.

[TylerDurden]

Precisely. Roony is just scaremongering  with such nonsense about the mercury-in-fish so-called "theory". Plus, it's absolutely disgraceful to scare off newbies from eating a wide variety of raw seafood as it's such a healthy food.The fishscam.com website is 1 of the 2 sources I cited, incidentally, and also reveals the other source within its pages.

[William]

Roony is just scaremongering  with such nonsense about the mercury-in-fish so-called "theory".

That there is mercury in fish is not a theory,it is a fact as the measurements quoted by Stig show.

[TylerDurden]

That there is mercury in fish is not a theory,it is a fact as the measurements quoted by Stig show.

 The point is not that mercury doesn't exist in species; after all natural traces of mercury exists in all wildlife, the oceans, and the rest of the world, along with traces of every other element , such as uranium. The POINT is that the traces of mercury, re parts per million(!) are so tiny that they have no effect on people.

[William]

The POINT is that the traces of mercury, re parts per million(!) are so tiny that they have no effect on people.

There is no minimum level for mercury below which it is safe. It is poisonous in any quantity, be that only one molecule.

[TylerDurden]

There is no minimum level for mercury below which it is safe. It is poisonous in any quantity, be that only one molecule.

This is just the sort of retarded fanaticism that has to be stopped in the raw-foodist community.Mercury does indeed have a minimum dosage level above which it is harmful, just like with any other substance, it's just that it's much, much higher than anti-mercury proponents like to claim. Here's yet another study showing that low doses of mercury aren't harmful:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12197270

What I found most amusing was that the famous  Seychelles study  by Rochester University showed that there was actually a  benefit as mercury-levels went up:- " in The Rochester team is continuing the study and is currently analyzing the same group of children at eight years of age. The scientists are also working with nutrition experts from the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland to explain an unexpected finding: As mercury levels in the children went up, so did their performance on tests." taken from:-
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm

 Now they didn't ascribe it to mercury, it's most likely due to increased fish-consumption re omega-3s, but it does show that mercury-levels in foods are of no relevance whatsoever to human health.

[miles]

Some would probably claim it was due to HF autism from the mercury

[TylerDurden]

Some would probably claim it was due to HF autism from the mercury

Only the most deluded would do so, given that autism is a genetic condition not something that is transmitted via food! At any rate, the fact that there was a rise in performance re neurological effects simply demolishes the mercury-toxicity notions outright.

[wodgina]

Only the most deluded would do so, given that autism is a genetic condition not something that is transmitted via food! At any rate, the fact that there was a rise in performance re neurological effects simply demolishes the mercury-toxicity notions outright.

 

So food doesn't affect your DNA or  your parents DNA. Or are trying to start a debate?

[TylerDurden]

So food doesn't affect your DNA or  your parents DNA. Or are trying to start a debate?

Well, I do believe in epigenetics where a grandparent's diet or behaviour can influence asthma-rates of grandchildren etc., but there is no credible link made between mercury-ingestion and autism etc. if ingested within that person's lifetime.

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm going back on "fasting until 5" (http://www.fast-5.com/), then one big meal of raw meat.  (Some days, if I feel like it, I'll have a "cooked veg only" meal, until I'm sure I can survive on meat alone.)

I think you'd be better off eating your big meal around noon. Just my guess.

[Stig of the Dump]

I'm genuinely interested in why you say that, cherimoya_kid.  I've done a lot of fasting and I find that until I break the fast, I don't get hungry.  I think if I ate at midday, I'd want to eat in the afternoon/evening too.

Are you thinking about energy for work, etc.?  (My life is too messed up for that to be an issue.  :lol: )

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm genuinely interested in why you say that, cherimoya_kid.  I've done a lot of fasting and I find that until I break the fast, I don't get hungry.  I think if I ate at midday, I'd want to eat in the afternoon/evening too.

Are you thinking about energy for work, etc.?  (My life is too messed up for that to be an issue.  :lol: )

No, I'm thinking about how much better you'd sleep, and how much better you'd digest your food.  Also, it's very helpful to truly stuff yourself at that one midday meal.  You'll find that you wake very hungry if you don't eat after about 2 pm, hungry enough to eat a very large meal.

[Stig of the Dump]

I might give it a go, as I am always experimenting.

[klowcarb]

I strongly disagree with cherimoya. Stick with the more NATURAL Fast-5 eating window of 5-10. This is highly optimal. I usually eat my biggest meal at 9PM--I'm eating now. I do not eat outside the 5-10 window. We are meant to be daily hunters and evening feasters.

Eating during the day makes me hungry, too.

[Stig of the Dump]

Eating during the day makes me hungry, too.

That's always been my experience - once I've eaten, the normal meal schedule is back on.  I might still try it though, if only to exclude it as an option, as I don't have a seven-day-a-week routine yet.

(My main problem is social "silly" eating at the weekends - then that normally messes me up until about Wednesday, by which time a sensible routine is back - before derailing again the next Saturday.  I've just told everyone that I'm stopping, and I'll bring my own food at the weekends.  I'll just have to take the feelings of "longing for the snacks of others" and any ribbing about raw meat.  I think I'm strong enough now.  Generally I feel very calm and able to take emotional knocks at the moment.  A new feeling for me.)

[Ioanna]

so far what i've liked best is eating two meals: one in the morning (wake up, then workout, then eat... so about 2.5 hours or so after rising?) then another not later than 2pm.  this is what i do on the weekends.  during the week it is just more convenient to eat when i get home from work, so i eat one meal between 6 and 8 pm typically on those days.

[cherimoya_kid]

I strongly disagree with cherimoya. Stick with the more NATURAL Fast-5 eating window of 5-10. This is highly optimal. I usually eat my biggest meal at 9PM--I'm eating now. I do not eat outside the 5-10 window. We are meant to be daily hunters and evening feasters.

Eating during the day makes me hungry, too.

I really do not enjoy waking up with a full belly.  It's better to eat nearly all of your daily food at noon, and only a little bit in the evening.  It digest much better, and you SLEEP better. Period. End of story.

[Ioanna]

ck, are you saying you eat your first meal at noonish, and then another lighter one early evening?

[cherimoya_kid]

ck, are you saying you eat your first meal at noonish, and then another lighter one early evening?

Yes.  I would go back to one a day if my work schedule allowed it. Another method would be to eat earlier in the evening for my second meal, but, again, my work schedule doesn't really allow for that.  I wish it did.

[Stig of the Dump]

Just to say (some of you will have been reading) that I have had a few revelatory breakthroughs in the past few days, on this thread:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/health-b29/%27compete-with-meat%27/

Anyway, I now feel completely at home here, and have decided I am "enough of a real member" to set up a journal:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/stig-of-the-dump%27s-journal-may-contain-rude-language-d/

And a photos thread:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/before-and-after-photos/stig-of-the-dump%27s-photos/

(Thanks again to everyone who has helped me so far.)