What is the difference between Raw Paleo and Aajonus Vonderplanitz's diet?

[raw-al]

Just wondering. I thought they were the same, but apparently not.

[djr_81]

Mostly the raw dairy. I haven't read up too much on the Primal Diet but from discussion here that seems to be the biggest point of contention.

[TylerDurden]

Rawpalaeo= raw meats, raw organ-meats, raw fish/shellfish, raw fruit, raw vegetables, raw honey(comb) - also, technically,  raw nuts, raw mushrooms though the latter two are high in antinutrients so not generally suitable as staples. RZCers just focus on the raw animal foods.

Primal Diet:- Includes the above foods, but there is a rather big focus by most Primal Dieters on 5 or 6 main raw foods:- raw dairy, raw veggie-juice, raw honey, raw coconut cream, raw muscle-meats and raw nuts.

[goodsamaritan]

Just wondering. I thought they were the same, but apparently not.

Aajonus made his Primal Diet by experimenting with foods and these are his opinions of foods that work today.  Plus Aajonus is primarily a healer, so his point of view is how to cure people from diseases.

For myself raw dairy is just indigestible, I have to accept I am lactose intolerant.

I myself just stick to whatever works and what works for me in the past 2.5 years is aajonus primal diet minus dairy = raw paleo diet.

[PaleoPhil]

Plus Paleo people didn't have juicers or blenders, so they would have eaten whole veggies instead of veggie juices. Aajonus' views appear to be a mixture of Natural Hygiene plus raw-Paleo-diet-type ideas based on the diets of a few modern hunter-gatherer peoples plus his experience and his observations of his clients' experiences.

Other foods that are also Paleo but not commonly eaten by modern Paleo-type dieters include seaweeds, insects, grubs, worms, lizards, etc. I've come across a couple mentions of hunter-gatherers drinking some milk from an animal they killed (if I recall correctly, I think they fermented it in the animal's bladder), but without domestication this would have been a minor part of the diet, rather than a staple food like with AV's version of a primal diet.

[Haai]

Plus Paleo people didn't have juicers or blenders, so they would have eaten whole veggies instead of veggie juices.

You can chew vegetebles to extract the juice in your mouth and then spit out the mainly-indigestable pulp. Aajonus mentions in one of his books that he does this when travelling when he doesn't have access to a juicer.

[PaleoPhil]

Yeah, but can you imagine a Stone Ager or recent hunter gatherer doing that and have you ever encountered such a dietary rule in any research you did on hunter gatherers? Is there any precedent for this other than the philosophy of Aajonus or other Natural Hygiene proponents?

[reyyzl]

Other foods that are also Paleo but not commonly eaten by modern Paleo-type dieters include seaweeds, insects, grubs, worms, lizards, etc. I've come across a couple mentions of hunter-gatherers drinking some milk from an animal they killed (if I recall correctly, I think they fermented it in the animal's bladder)

    Not in pd either, although not considered outside of the diet.

[King Salmon]

When I met A.V. he never mentioned anything in regards to the quality of what the animals ate.That is to say,he never talked about grass-fed let alone grass-finished.Or even comparisons to grain fed vs grass fed.I only heard about this from this website, and I met A.V. back in c.'97-'98.

Also,he makes honey sound like a "miracle-medicine" IMO which makes certain people eat far too much of it.

[KD]

The way I understand the word 'Primal' as used in most cases seems to signify a diet and lifestyle that is suitable for our primal (i.e. initial) origins, not one that directly mimics any particular time period or food categories or processing methods, which can at any time include fermentation, cooking, or machines.

THE Primal Diet seems to be somewhat different in that the diet itself goes beyond even those categories into very specific protocols nested in the idea of curing specific disease. Often these are tailored to individuals who may have diets as divergent as no-meat to diets containing regular does of adrenals, testicles and eyeballs. Likely as mentioned, it consists for most dietarily of muscle-meats (from a wide range of animals), dairy-fat, and a largely fiber-less intake of supplemental plant foods.  

Often using the word 'primal' would include dairy or other types of foods, as long as they fit this category ( you could even include foods like ACV or other fermented foods and or neolithic fruits into this category), although there are dairy free 'Primal Blueprint' dieters, as well as people that do AV protocols that don't otherwise do dairy.

Natural hygiene and THE primal diet of Aaajonus Vonderplanitz are the two most divergent philosophies I've come across in natural (raw specific) health.

the only way to organize principals from these ideas together would be around issues that many raw paleos would also agree.

that of commercial supplementation being useless->dangerous (although Aajonus believes in raw un-packaged food based supplementation (juice, coconut cream) and otherwise raw products like ACV etc...),

parasites (although many hygiene camps specifically ignore animal foods of course, they do not recommend any treatment or cleanses other than extensive fasting),

enzymes (including damage done by both freezing and cooking),

salt (both see it as deadly poison, except possibility in small theraputic doses by AV),

medical and alternative therapies such as cleanses as being either harmful direcly or as in removing 'symptoms' from poor diets (colonics, products, liver cleanses etc..)

and potentially water (although they can be as different as they are equal on that issue. NH recommends getting hydration from plants, AV from some plants but mostly raw unfrozen fats. NH seek out the most purified and distilled of water for 'cleansing', AV the most mineral dense waters that don't pull as much minerals from the body)

the main guiding principle behind hygiene or the universalized and depersonalized "The Science of Human Health" is that there are NO specific treatments, foods, or combinations of foods that act on the body in any beneficial way. That the body is self healing and self cleansing given the proper circumstance. That the only method we can exert on the body is to give proper food (as dictated by hygiene) and proper rest (fasting). NH is vehemently against any processing including fermentation and machines expect for rare food prep but not 'ideal' intake.

Aajonus' diet is pretty much the exact opposite in that each specific food or combination of foods is meant to either dissolve and carry out unnatural poisons in addition to being nourishing in that order. Therapies are praised and fasting is not recommended in any cases due to the idealization of nature in ignorance of modern physical facts. Since the diet is specified as having that as its ultimately goal, and going by the word 'primal' as signifying what is said above, and not in terms of trying to re-create any kind of natural circumstance. Therefore any direct questioning of tools or processes is null in these discussions unless one uses 0 modern processes in the obtaining or eating or storing of their food and for living and transport. (and finding that to be the most superior mode of healing).

[KD]

In further breakdown of the discrepancy of logic between what is 'primal' and what is of the paleolithic period, its possible to look to both civilization's development of tools and pasturing/agriculture in a different light. When it comes to 'juice', what is clear is that when we look to nature is that many animals that we know consume plant matter as a main course of their diet will wadge and expel fiber.

The mere lack of many human examples of people consuming large amounts of plant fluid through this method is a useless analogy for many reasons and hints to the same 'do as others to to get their results' mentality. One: all these people on record cook, ferment, or infuse much of their plant foods in forms of teas and broths. Two: these people - because of their inheritance and environment - require little of the benefits derived from such practices as admitted by AV himself, who says it takes as  little as one generation (bearing one child after being on a healthy diet) for them to not 'require' vegetable juices per his specifications. As for the methods of processing these foods, It is inconclusive whether the addition of these 'plant medicines' are of any use or detriment to modern humans, but the method of extraction or 'requiring tools' is basically false. I wrote about that here: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/breaking-down-cellulose/msg41899/#msg41899

In terms of dairy, I find it incredibly interesting that other than empirical experience (which is valid) the main ideological arguments against dairy is that one cannot obtain quantities of dairy without domesticating animals. That it took time to tame such ideal animals and breed them to passively obtain their dairy (even though buffalo have only been domesticated for a few hundred years) and therefore it is not of our genetics to breakdown and consume the dairy of another animal because it happened later in our 'evolution'. The irony is that every aspect of domestication and agriculture is entirely neolithic, producing a product that is entirely different on a genetic level, and it is even admitted by many that domesticated animals do not have the same profile as wild animals. Therefore these animals could be similarly neolithic as domesticated fruits to wild fruits and domesticated rice is to wild rice.  Its also possible to have a diet that consists entirely of 'paleolithic food' which consists of exactly the same animal from exactly the same place year round.

Considering the possibility that we developed the practice of cooking and then pasturing some time while living in the Savannah, it would make other modes of processing and storage much more neolithic than the harvesting of dairy, which surely started closely after husbandry began as an obvious food source and result of 'ownership' over the animal kingdom.

Prior to the modern period, no one that lived in the tropics or the Savannah ever experienced a frozen sea fish, or a frozen banana, so the fact that one has to squeeze a vegetable or pacify an animal seems to be a far lesser 'technology' than either cooking or freezing, from a purely ideological point of view, different empirical results and physical results of such notwithstanding.

Another interesting aside about hygiene and other re-enactment type mentalities against specific treatments or foods as having value I think can be illustrated in a simple analysis of weaponized poison and antidote. There is a large well known history of deadly and sometimes naturally-occurring poison pre 'western medicine' that can result in fatal detoxification from the consumer. The only possible way to stop these reactions-> death is by neutralizing the effect in an internal-chemical level which allows the poison to either dissolve or not cause as rapid damage to the tissue and organs afflicted. If someone was exposed to large and lethal quantities of Cyanide, and given a choice of Sodium Nitrate or some similar compound to possibly save their life, all but maybe the most extreme NH fanatic would take the compound, (the hygienist would surely die). Modern humans have both the luxury and the negative aspects of having a body that is extremely efficient in storing toxins internally as to protect basic functioning and in some cases expelling them quite efficiently. Short of dealing with emergency level intoxication from Cyanide, there seems to be a major opportunity to troubleshoot long term how to remove these substances efficiently and healthfully over time without requiring harmful engineered compounds. but the idea that the body intuitively knows how to deal with these stored  compounds invented within the last couple hundred years (or prior as mentioned in coal and cooking etc..) seems to be massively contrary to the ideas that exclude such foods based on these same concepts.

[raw-al]

When I met A.V. he never mentioned anything in regards to the quality of what the animals ate.That is to say,he never talked about grass-fed let alone grass-finished.Or even comparisons to grain fed vs grass fed.I only heard about this from this website, and I met A.V. back in c.'97-'98.
Also,he makes honey sound like a "miracle-medicine" IMO which makes certain people eat far too much of it.

That's interesting because he mentions raw organic pasture fed unheated foods all through his writings. Maybe he assumed you knew it. That's one difficulty of teaching, you have to mention everything and then people think you think they are stupid and if you assume certain things then they think you are slack. Or possibly he was unaware at the time. We all learn as time goes on.
Ayurveda calls honey an Anupan meaning it is one of six or seven carriers of nutrients to the cell. Herbal medicines are frequently to be taken with honey. However you are right that too much of anything is not a good idea. Having said that you keep your dirty paws off my stash.. LOL

[NaturalHealthDoctor]

You can chew vegetebles to extract the juice in your mouth and then spit out the mainly-indigestable pulp. Aajonus mentions in one of his books that he does this when travelling when he doesn't have access to a juicer.

This is an interesting topic.  Just wanted to add my 2 cents.  Jane Goodall discovered in her expeditions that Chimps actually "juice" leaves.
Chimps are omnivorous frugivores while Gorillas are more herbivores.  Gorillas can handle massive amounts of green plants and are designed to digest it.  Chimps do eat some leaves but can't handle as large amounts as Gorillas.  Apparently at times, they chew on a big wad, suck out the juice and eventually spit out the fiber.  I do supplement my diet with daily juicing and have found it to be immensely helpful for myself and my patients. 
If you want to be all natural, do what the chimps do. 

[raw-al]

Somewhere in the past I recall someone mentioning juicing leaves of trees. Any thoughts on this?

[ster546464@yahoo.co.uk]

raw paleo is all about doing what paleos did, and is philisophical and not based on science

a little bit of cultured dairy, and 72 hour fermented rye grain, not higher than 5 per cent of your diet, is fine,

Ajonus admits in his book he only eats 75 per cent raw
He eats raw dairy,
Does vegetable juice
Does eat bread ,

Unlike a paleo, a paleo eater only does it because, 'thats what paleos did back in the day'

[Hannibal]

Ajonus admits in his book he only eats 75 per cent raw
He eats raw dairy,
Does vegetable juice
Does eat bread

It was a couple of decades ago, not now.

[Ioanna]

Unlike a paleo, a paleo eater only does it because, 'thats what paleos did back in the day'

nope, just the initial kick in the right direction

[PaleoPhil]

This is an interesting topic.  Just wanted to add my 2 cents.  Jane Goodall discovered in her expeditions that Chimps actually "juice" leaves.

That's interesting. What did she mean by "juice" and do you have a source on that where I can learn more?

raw paleo is all about doing what paleos did, and is philisophical and not based on science.... a paleo eater only does it because, 'thats what paleos did back in the day'

Not my version of raw Paleo--please speak for yourself. It looks like you have much to learn about Paleo, although it's understandable how you could have been misled, as a number of newbie Paleo dieters seem to hold this same misconception. What are your criteria for determining what to eat, Ster?

...

Ajonus admits in his book he only eats 75 per cent raw
He eats raw dairy,
Does vegetable juice
Does eat bread ....

Didn't Tyler report that Aajonus has since gone fully raw and doesn't or rarely eats bread any more? Tyler, can you refresh my memory on this?

[TylerDurden]

That's interesting. What did she mean by "juice" and do you have a source on that where I can learn more?

Irrelevant as the chimps never ate juiced, chewed veg to the same extent that humans have eaten raw veggie-juice. So, raw veggie-juice is not natural.

Not my version of raw Paleo--please speak for yourself. It looks like you have much to learn about Paleo, as do quite a few newbie Paleo dieters. What are your criteria for determining what to eat, Ster?

Exactly. Most peoples' definition of what rawpalaeo means is that it is a raw version of the (cooked) palaeolithic diet(ie no dairy, no grains, no legumes, and no cooked foods).

Didn't Tyler report that Aajonus has since gone fully raw and doesn't or rarely eats bread any more? Tyler, can you refresh my memory on this?

  Correct. Judging from a number of Primal Dieters' accounts in the last 10 years, perhaps more, Aajonus has long since gone fully raw and no longer recommends a tiny bit of cooked starch such as potatoes or the like.

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for the info, Tyler. There seems to be a lot of old, now obsolete, info about Aajonus and his version of Primal dieting floating around the Web.

Exactly. Most peoples' definition of what rawpalaeo means is that it is a raw version of the (cooked) palaeolithic diet(ie no dairy, no grains, no legumes, and no cooked foods).

I was referring more specifically to the why of eating Paleo. My reasons for eating Paleo are not purely philosophical, are not devoid of science, and are not purely "because that's what Paleos did back in the day," and I have explained this in the past (and even partially in my signature--which perhaps Ster missed?). Ster's criticism is also untrue of some other Paleo dieters I know (such as you and Lex, for example) and I suspect many more. As a matter of fact, a prominent (partially-cooked -- he apparently briefly sears his steaks, for example) Paleo dieter, Kurt Harris, MD, has argued vehemently against adopting this blind-emulation attitude.

[TylerDurden]

The point is that for most people "palaeo" is all about science as they invariably have dairy-allergies etc.Mostly it's about what they did back in the day, albeit from a scientific perspective. As for Kurt Harris, the latter has only adopted the "palaeo" name because it sounds good , not because he has any remote allegiance to the notion - he is , after all, pro-dairy etc.

[PaleoPhil]

Re KGH--That just further proves one of my points, which is that there are different notions of what is Paleo--yours and KGH's are clearly different--so Ster's castigating all Paleo dieters as holding the same misguided notion of blind emulation is false.

[TylerDurden]

Re KGH--That just further proves one of my points, which is that there are different notions of what is Paleo--yours and KGH's are clearly different--so Ster's castigating all Paleo dieters as holding the same misguided notion of blind emulation is false.

Except that KGH's notion of what is palaeo is clearly false and purely driven  by financial motivations etc. "palaeo" is an obvious, very clear concept, denoting anti-dairy notions, anti-grains etc.

[PaleoPhil]

Except that KGH's notion of what is palaeo is clearly false...

Yeah, yeah, I know you disagree with him, but he likely disagrees with you on your characterization of his views and I don't buy your characterizations myself. Paleo is a big tent with many divergent views and much debate.

[TylerDurden]

Yeah, yeah, I know you disagree with him, but he likely disagrees with you on your characterization of his views and I don't buy your characterizations myself. Paleo is a big tent with many divergent views and much debate.

No, it isn't. "Palaeo", on a scientific level, means no dairy, grains, or legumes, so anyone allowing such foods cannot be considered  "palaeo" at all. "Semi-" palaeo is more like it, if that.