youtube video of long-term primal dieter

[michaelwh]

Malcolm's youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Rawbase8

He's been a primal dieter for 12 years, and has 2 videos about it. One of the videos was just posted a few days ago.

[Raw Kyle]

I like this guy.

[goodsamaritan]

We should all make our own videos.

[KD]

not that I'm shocked by anything anymore, but its hard to imagine anyone commenting negatively about this peaceful, stable and extremely healthy/young looking person especially for his preexisting health issues/surgeries, age, and musicians' lifestyle. Its really lose-lose for agitated dumasses and their theories.

[goodsamaritan]

We have to flood you tube with raw paleo dieters / raw meat eaters.

Show our numbers.

It is time.

[sven]

we should keep this diet a secret and let everyone else have bad health

[TylerDurden]

we should keep this diet a secret and let everyone else have bad health

  Admittedly, I do experience a bit of Schadenfreude when I think of the fact that in a few years I will be at the point where everyone else on SAD diets etc., is going to be starting to experience all sorts of health-problems linked to heat-created toxins such as AGEs. I've already seen some people age faster than others and so on. While I will be free of heart-disease and still be able to walk up steep steps with ease at the age of 70 or even 100. I've noticed that, in my own garden in Italy, virtually all the older people who go there who are  above 70 have such fouled-up joints with not enough lubricating fluid  in them etc., that they cannot climb up the very steep steps without taking pain-killers once or twice every single day.

On the other hand, I am quite well aware that vastly increasing the number of rawpalaeodieters would inevitably  create a larger target-market which farmers could single out, thus making it much easier for me to find sources of raw marrow/suet and other unusual organs/items which are these days just thrown away due to lack of demand. This would also lead to lower prices as the choices widen.

[sven]

Congrats to the guy on youtube for achieving better health.

On the other hand, I am quite well aware that vastly increasing the number of rawpalaeodieters would inevitably  create a larger target-market which farmers could single out, thus making it much easier for me to find sources of raw marrow/suet and other unusual organs/items which are these days just thrown away due to lack of demand. This would also lead to lower prices as the choices widen.

Never thought of it this way, I like the idea.  

unfortunatley Schadenfreude is the best way to describe how I feel about the way I'm eating now.  My friends always look puzzled when I'm exploding with energy and they burn out quickly.  On top of being burned out all my friends are in their early 20s and when you have low energy at that age you know something is wrong.  They've seen me eat raw and are completely fascinated and respect it very much but 95% of people I know would NEVER adopt a raw food diet.  But like a good friend I told them what has made the difference in my life(diet),  I have had 2 people who are starting to eat raw meat like I do and are noticing some of the benefits.  It really takes a certain rare type of person to take the first few steps in eating raw so  this diet won't get too popular anytime soon.  More of the population eating raw would be nice, however it is something that makes me and everyone on this forum very unique and different from everyone else.  So it's nice to be unique and not following the rest of the herd.  Sucks for everyone else

[Raw Kyle]

I don't think more people doing a raw diet would lower prices. Maybe in an area where there is little demand for some things more people would help bring those things into production, but at a certain point there are limiting factors. The biggest being grassfed meats. There is only so much of that the world can produce, and if many people start consuming it the price will sky rocket. It's already at least twice as expensive as grain fed meat, imagine if it was totally mainstream. Sure more farmers could produce it, but for all the bad things about grain agriculture the one thing that is true is that it produces more meat with less land in less time for less money. In addition every year less land is available because of non-agricultural factors like residential development. I do not see prices of grass fed meats, the staple of a raw paleo diet, coming down ever, only going up.

[TylerDurden]

I don't think more people doing a raw diet would lower prices. Maybe in an area where there is little demand for some things more people would help bring those things into production, but at a certain point there are limiting factors. The biggest being grassfed meats. There is only so much of that the world can produce, and if many people start consuming it the price will sky rocket. It's already at least twice as expensive as grain fed meat, imagine if it was totally mainstream. Sure more farmers could produce it, but for all the bad things about grain agriculture the one thing that is true is that it produces more meat with less land in less time for less money. In addition every year less land is available because of non-agricultural factors like residential development. I do not see prices of grass fed meats, the staple of a raw paleo diet, coming down ever, only going up.

  Most raw organ-meats like eyes, suet etc. etc. are simply thrown away in most cases. More RPDers in a community would mean those foods would not go to waste. I also heavily disagree with the notion that feeding animals grain means less land is used - by definition, the planting of the grains for the cattle, in the first place means a lot of land is completely used up, even if the cattle are kept indoors in a small shed. Plus, grainfeeding involves smaller profit-margins because of the expensive medicines/vaccines etc. those farmers have to give their cattle as the cattle have weaker immune-systems and otherwise succumb to disease.

And there is no likelihood that the majority of people would go rawpalaeo for obvious reasons. Certainly 10% of the population in Western countries could easily go rpd without a major change in prices.

[goodsamaritan]

10% of the western population.
That's a pretty big market.
This forum could massively explode to hundreds of thousands of users.
We should all profit from this some how.
We could write books.
Be given plaques or statues in recognition of... as founders /pioneers of the raw paleo forum... etc. etc.
For re-discovering the original diet of humanity...

[Raw Kyle]

This was taken from a food revolution website: "Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed beef, but in the United States today what is commercially available is almost all feedlot beef. The reason? It's faster, and so more profitable. Seventy-five years ago, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter. Today, they are 14 or 16 months. You can't take a beef calf from a birth weight of 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a little more than a year on grass. It takes enormous quantities of corn, protein supplements, antibiotics and other drugs, including growth hormones."

[TylerDurden]

I quite agree that grainfed meat appears to bring in bigger profits in the short-term. But as your above quote suggests, there is a lot of additional expense in the form of corn-feed/antibiotics/drugs etc. etc. Plus, since grainfed cattle are far more prone to disease, it can get even worse for the farmer; current regulations in the UK, for example, demand that an entire herd gets slaughtered immediately if just 1 or 2 of the animals get infected with some disease(ever since BSE regulations).

I talked to a grassfed meat farmer some time back who told me that something like 2-3 years was needed for a cow to build up enough fat on a grassfed diet.

[Raw Kyle]

Of course I think grass fed is better for everyone, but farmers wouldn't be switching to grain (which they have to buy) and all the drugs (again, another expense) if it wasn't bringing in more profit to offset those costs. Even beyond the longer raising time there is the issue that more calories can be grown in the same amount of land with grains rather than grass. This is the same reason grain eating cultures could take over hunter gatherer cultures, they could feed larger standing armies by growing more food in their land.

[PaleoPhil]

On the other hand, I am quite well aware that vastly increasing the number of rawpalaeodieters would inevitably  create a larger target-market which farmers could single out, thus making it much easier for me to find sources of raw marrow/suet and other unusual organs/items which are these days just thrown away due to lack of demand. This would also lead to lower prices as the choices widen.

Many of the farmers who throw away organs will give them away free. I have benefited from some of these free organs myself, including free elk liver! How could the prices be lowered below free? Unfortunately, I don't currently have the capacity to store large amounts of free organs and don't venture out to the farm areas often, so more markets carrying organs would improve convenience, but the price couldn't go below free.

[Ioanna]

i've definitely benefited from the low demand for fat and organs and other scraps that i use for dog food.  even the meats (ground or whole cuts) are comparable to (often lower here) whole foods prices that are not even 100% grass-fed.  

[TylerDurden]

Many of the farmers who throw away organs will give them away free. I have benefited from some of these free organs myself, including free elk liver! How could the prices be lowered below free? Unfortunately, I don't currently have the capacity to store large amounts of free organs and don't venture out to the farm areas often, so more markets carrying organs would improve convenience, but the price couldn't go below free.

  I have sometimes gotten such foods for free. But only  very occasionally; if I made it part of a regular order, they would always sooner or later charge a price for such throwaway organs.  And most farmers I talk to can't be bothered to give even the organs away for free even if they don't use them, as it takes time to cut the organs from the meats(farmers now have to pay 2 inspectors in the UK to vet their meats re health, so the longer the animal takes to get cut up(re getting extra organs out etc.), the more the farmers have to pay these inspectors, and it's just not worth it for them, since organs are much cheaper than muscle-meats and therefore bring in less profit.

[TylerDurden]

Of course I think grass fed is better for everyone, but farmers wouldn't be switching to grain (which they have to buy) and all the drugs (again, another expense) if it wasn't bringing in more profit to offset those costs. Even beyond the longer raising time there is the issue that more calories can be grown in the same amount of land with grains rather than grass. This is the same reason grain eating cultures could take over hunter gatherer cultures, they could feed larger standing armies by growing more food in their land.

The grainfed farmers do not necessarily bring in more of a profit, they just get their money at an earlier date;  grassfed farmers get the money later but get far better profits than grainfed-meat farmers.  Humans are not terribly bright or wise and, according to some studies I've seen, are more often prepared to accept a smaller amount of money given to them after a short period, than a much larger sum of money given to them after a much longer period. And, like I said, there is the issue of outbreaks of disease such as bluebottle/bse, which mean entire herds of grainfed cattle routinely get ordered to be wiped out if just 1 animal in the herd gets infected. So, there are other ways for the grainfed-meat farmer to lose money big-time.

There are other examples than just grassfed/grainfed meats. There are whiskies which are matured for up to 22 years before being sold. There's still a healthy market for such kinds of whisky, despite most manufacturers preferring to let whiskies mature for much shorter periods than that.

[PaleoPhil]

It's called volume and economies of scale. Volume generally produces more profits. It's why McDonald's restaurants are generally more profitable than expensive gourmet restaurants.

[Raw Kyle]

So what you're saying is that the reason why grass fed meats are more expensive than grain fed has nothing to do with resources of raising the animals to obtain the meat, but is just arbitrarily higher because the farmers know they can get away with charging people who choose grass fed more?

[TylerDurden]

So what you're saying is that the reason why grass fed meats are more expensive than grain fed has nothing to do with resources of raising the animals to obtain the meat, but is just arbitrarily higher because the farmers know they can get away with charging people who choose grass fed more?

I would agree that maintaining grassfed cattle doesn't require much cash; after all one only has to leave them out to graze constantly, with little or no money needed for medicines. But they do deserve to get more cash per kilo anyway as the grassfed meat they provide does indeed have a higher nutrient-value than grainfed meats.

[TylerDurden]

It's called volume and economies of scale. Volume generally produces more profits. It's why McDonald's restaurants are generally more profitable than expensive gourmet restaurants.

McDonald's have a wider customer-base and they use chemicals etc, so as to increase profits.

[PaleoPhil]

McDonald's have a wider customer-base and they use chemicals etc, so as to increase profits.

Correct, and factory farms also have a wider customer-base and use chemicals, etc. so as to increase profits, and McDonald's buys their meat from factory farms. Noticing a trend here?

[Raw Kyle]

McDonald's have a wider customer-base and they use chemicals etc, so as to increase profits.

You just said with farming that the chemicals are another cost and therefore make it more expensive.

[cherimoya_kid]

You just said with farming that the chemicals are another cost and therefore make it more expensive.

Actually, feedlot cattle have almost no profit margin at all.  Grass-fed have a much higher profit margin. I think that the beef cattle farmers are really taking a hit these last few years, as grain-fed feedlot cows are the norm here.  Give it a few more years, it will turn back the other direction.