A day in the life of TylerDurden

[TylerDurden]

Thanks for mentioning that bit about giant pandas, it's very insightful and wrecks the whole theory re length of time "proving" that a diet is healthy. I hope you don't mind - I'm going to  mention this on the paleofood list along with the point re grains being consumed 105,000 years ago etc.

[TylerDurden]

Well, I am now planning to attend a traditional(pre-Vatican II) Latin Mass this Christmas at some nearby Roman Catholic Church, primarily for tradition's sake, given that it is Christmas. You see,  I can't really do the usual Christmas thing such as eating cooked turkey, Christmas Pudding(I had an experimental organic(no veg-oil etc.) Christmas Pudding a year or two ago and I vomited it all out). I did have a whole raw turkey and whole raw goose in my early rawpalaeo years over the whole Christmas/New Year period but, quite frankly, the raw turkey generally tasted very dry and I'm not fond of domesticated fowl given those 100% grain-filled diets. And I don't feel too comfortable, just now, in replacing the dodgy traditional Christmas foods with alcohol of any kind.

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for mentioning that bit about giant pandas, it's very insightful and wrecks the whole theory re length of time "proving" that a diet is healthy. I hope you don't mind - I'm going to  mention this on the paleofood list along with the point re grains being consumed 105,000 years ago etc.

You're welcome. Another good example of incomplete adaptation after millions of years involves chimpanzees and fruit. Despite eating fruit for millions of years, chimpanzees in the wild still get significantly more dental caries than wild primates that eat less fruit:

Tooth Decay in Chimps
From Wild Health By Cindy Engel:

"Kenneth Glander, director of primate research at Duke Primate Center, studied the teeth of more than 950 mantled howler monkeys in South America and found a complete absence of cavities and gum disease. These monkeys not only have a low-sugar diet, they also eat a great quantity of cashew pedicels (Anacardium occidentale)-which contain the phenolic compounds anacardic acid and cardol that are active against tooth-decay bacteria. This diet of low sugar and high phenols may be helping to protect the monkeys against tooth decay. Phenols such as tannins are common in many plants, and are known to inhibit the growth of Streptococcus mutans, a main protagonist in tooth decay.

Chimpanzees, which eat far more sugary fruit than howler monkeys, suffer from both tooth decay and gum disease. To cope with this ailment, they chew on antibacterial barks-which local people use to keep teeth healthy-and inspect and clean each other's teeth. In captivity, one chimpanzee was even seen to pry out the bad teeth of another by means of a simple wooden lever she had made."

(See also Dental pathologies in ten free-ranging chimpanzees from Gombe National Park, Tanzania and EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DENTAL DISEASE)

[carnivore]

Some foods seem harder for certain species to adapt to than others. For example, some plant foods appear to be very difficult for carnivores and certain omnivores to adapt to. Giant pandas have been eating bamboo for two million years, and its ancestor ate bamboo before that ("Remains Of Earliest Giant Panda Discovered," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070618174710.htm), but giant pandas are still are not well adapted to it. So a bamboo diet is not a healthy diet for them, despite eating it for millions of years. Another example is the difficulty that humans have had adapting to grains, although grains have never been eaten by humans in general to the extent that giant pandas eat bamboo.

Where is the evidence that giant pandas are still not adapted to a bamboo diet?

[PaleoPhil]

Not fully adapted. Emphasis on the fully. I've posted on their multiple issues elsewhere:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/welcoming-commitee/hola/msg20095/#msg20095
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/health-and-climate/msg20544/#msg20544

I used to think that 250,000 years would probably be enough time for humans to adapt to cooked foods, but after learning about how chimps still get cavities from fruit-heavy diets after eating them for 6 million years, and giant pandas still suffer deleterious effects from a 99% bamboo diet after more than 2 million years, I must admit that Geoff may well be right about humans not being fully adapted to cooking--and it also would explain why I and others here seem to benefit from a raw diet.

Certain dietary changes seem easier to adapt to than others. Going from omnivores that ate mostly fruits and insects to meat-heavy omnivorous hunters of megafauna (which could possibly even be categorized as carnivorous, depending on where one draws the physiological and dietary lines), doesn't seem to have been as difficult an adaptation as that experienced by the carnivore giant pandas and their ancestors. It's not that surprising, given that the change was less radical and plants have built-in defense mechanisms that involve toxins and some (like bamboo) are very fibrous and difficult to digest, whereas the defense mechanism of animals is their teeth, claws, mental power, etc. (once they're dead, you've neutralized the defense mechanisms of most of them).

Scientists recently figured out what appears to be the key reason why giant pandas eat 99% bamboo despite it not being optimal for their physiology--they lack some genes for tasting meat:

Panda genome unveiled
DNA clues suggest little inbreeding, surprise on the bamboo diet
By Laura Sanders
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50736/title/Panda_genome_unveiled

.... The panda genome gives clues to understanding the panda’s strict bamboo diet. It turns out that pandas have mutations in two copies of a taste gene called T1R1, which encodes a protein that senses the savory taste of meats, cheeses, broths and other high-protein foods. These mutations may have robbed pandas of the ability to taste meat, pushing them toward their bamboo diet, the researchers suggest.

Pandas possess all the requisite genes for digesting meat, but none of the genes required for digesting bamboo, Wang and colleagues found. The researchers guess that pandas rely entirely on communities of gut microbes for extracting nutrients from bamboo.

So, just as it appears that it takes more time to adapt to new plants in the diet than new meats, my guess is that it also takes longer to adapt to cooking (particularly high-heat cooking), if full adaptation is even possible.

[TylerDurden]

As for the chimpanzees, it might be that they're more adapted to a gorilla-like leaves and veg diet than a fruit-based one. Though, I don't think dental caries is, in itself, a sign of ill-health in general. Eating fruit might lead to dental caries but not ill-health as such. For example, those other primates seem to have found a way round this via eating those cashew pedicels.

[PaleoPhil]

As for the chimpanzees, it might be that they're more adapted to a gorilla-like leaves and veg diet than a fruit-based one. Though, I don't think dental caries is, in itself, a sign of ill-health in general. Eating fruit might lead to dental caries but not ill-health as such. For example, those other primates seem to have found a way round this via eating those cashew pedicels.

Yes, leaves do seem to be less of a problem for chimps and other primates than fruits, though even with leaves there is evidence of less than complete adaptation, for they need to periodically detox with clay, charcoal, etc., due to the buildup of natural insecticides in the body that develops over time from eating leaves.

I agree that dental caries don't prove general "ill health," and I believe that wild chimps are generally rather healthy. I was only speaking about dental health. I think we can all agree that dental caries are not a good thing. Even after 6 million years of eating fruits, chimps don't appear to be completely and absolutely adapted to eating fruit, else why would they get significantly more dental caries when eating it than primates who eat less fruit?

You raise an interesting point about general health and it would be interesting to investigate whether there are any other long-term deleterious effects of heavy fruit consumption on chimps, since poor dental health is associated with other health problems among humans (such as the recent connection made between gum disease and cardiovascular disease). After all, evolutionary adaptation only requires that a species live long enough to propagate itself, not that a species must become completely adapted to a food to the point that there are no long-term side effects that might shorten life at some point beyond reproductive age.

In other words, it seems to be effectively impossible for primates to completely adapt to digesting fruits and leaves without using adaptive practices to offset deleterious effects, like using tree oils to kill cary-promoting oral bacteria caused by heavy fruit eating and consuming clay or charcoal to offset a buildup of toxins from eating leaves. The idea promoted by many vegans and vegetarians that there is a "perfect" diet for humans based on that of chimps or gorillas which does not have any side effects, does not appear to apply even to the chimps and gorillas themselves.

The only food regularly eaten by wild chimps, monkeys and gorillas that I have not seen any side effects reported about is insects and other small creatures (like lizards, grubs, etc.), and even that could be attributed to the relatively small quantities eaten. The search for a symptom-free, "perfect" vegan/vegetarian diet that does not require dental care or detox seems to be a vain one, at least in the case of all primates, including the non-human ones.

[TylerDurden]

Yes, leaves do seem to be less of a problem for chimps and other primates than fruits, though even with leaves there is evidence of less than complete adaptation, for they need to periodically detox with clay, charcoal, etc., due to the buildup of natural insecticides in the body that develops over time from eating leaves.

Here's a paper on how rare geophagia is among mountain gorillas, for example:-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/entl338361570333/

The very fact that the mountain gorillas mentioned above that did practice geophagia only did so c. 5 or 6 times a year makes it clear there were other reasons associated with its consumption than the claim re dealing with antinutrients.

Even if one takes the antinutrient-claim at face-value, one also has to consider that herbivores by their very nature are at some stage going to eat a poisonous plant other than what they're used to, and then they would need to have clay, not necessarily on a regular basis. I mean, primates are definitely not like that parrot species Attenborough described which primarily eat only highly toxic plants and HAVE to eat clay immediately afterwards.

I agree that dental caries don't prove general "ill health," and I believe that wild chimps are generally rather healthy. I was only speaking about dental health. I think we can all agree that dental caries are not a good thing. Even after 6 million years of eating fruits, chimps don't appear to be completely and absolutely adapted to eating fruit, else why would they get significantly more dental caries when eating it than primates who eat less fruit?

 It was pointed out that the other primates simply  used different, perhaps more effective methods to counter the dental caries(re mention of cashew antibacterial agents). I don't therefore see any real link between dental caries and maladaptation to a fruit-diet. Maybe dental caries is something to expect for any frugivore with teeth, eventually.

Indeed, sites such as this one appear to indicate that dental caries is a standard for natural frugivores:-

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003996904002031

You raise an interesting point about general health and it would be interesting to investigate whether there are any other long-term deleterious effects of heavy fruit consumption on chimps, since poor dental health is associated with other health problems among humans (such as the recent connection made between gum disease and cardiovascular disease).

I have very serious doubts about such research links. I mean multiple papers have been made citing a link between good health and chocolate-consumption and similiar dodgy stuff without any genuine evidence to support such vague links.

[PaleoPhil]

...mountain gorillas mentioned above that did practice geophagia only did so c. 5 or 5 times a year makes it clear there were other reasons associated with its consumption than the claim re dealing with antinutrients.

I think the use of the term geophagia by that 1990 article is a bit out of date. Geophagia is sometimes used to describe an eating disorder, whereas I am more specifically discussing the natural practice of animals and people in the wild who eat clays and soils for beneficial purposes, rather than out of a pica disorder. Scientists now generally use the term geophagy for the latter.

I provide more up-to-date sources below that better reveal the importance of clay consumption among primates and other animals, but 5 to 6 times a year sounds reasonable to me for some mountain gorillas, especially when combined with the clay-containing termites that mountain gorillas feed on and other detoxicant sources (and the groups that don't eat clay directly may eat more of the clay-eating termites or other detoxifying and/or mineral-rich foods/materials). The tiny levels of toxins take a while to accumulate to toxic levels in the massive bodies of gorillas. I don't find anything I disagree with in that source--though I can only access the first page. On the contrary, it appears to support what I have been trying to say:

"Clay particles in ingested soil can absorb dietary toxins and aid in their excretion and can have an effect on gut pH that is favourable to symbiotic bacteria (Oates, 1978), although they can also chelate metal ions and prevent their adsorption (Robbins, 1983). ....

Mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei) studied at the Karisoke Research Centre in Rwanda's Parc National des Volcans have been observed to eat sediment that they dig from slightly weathered regolith (mass wasted deposits) (Fossey & Harcourt, 1977; Fossey, 1983; Watts, 1984). Not all study groups or individuals have been seen to eat such sediment. Those groups that eat sediment do so only five to six times per year, so that geophagia accounts for only a tiny fraction of dietary intake (Watts, 1984). Karisoke Group 5, however...."

There is also this:

"Chimpanzees select fungus-growing termites high in protein, energy and manganese, while gorillas select soil-feeding termites high in iron and ash with possible anti-diarrhoeal characteristics. Termite eating in western lowland gorillas might therefore be a high quality alternative for geophagy." How Insectivorous are Gorillas? Gorilla Journal 33, December 2006, http://www.berggorilla.org/english/gjournal/texte/33insect.html

Chimps also ingest clay:

More on medical geophagy in chimps: montmorillonite clay and the origins of life
http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2008/02/more_on_medical_geophagy_in_ch.php

French research group's studies on the rationale underlying Ugandan chimpanzee behavior of eating clay soils prior to their favorite plant. The researchers found [http://www.springerlink.com/content/c75t402487h68126/?p=01a5f0d6094d485aae42440e42f82d48&pi=0] that the combination of soil and the plant, Trichilia rubescens, led to activation of the plant's antimalarial compounds

primates are definitely not like that parrot species Attenborough described which primarily eat only highly toxic plants and HAVE to eat clay immediately afterwards.

Yes, and I would not dream of equating the level of clay consumption of primates with that of parrots, so we agree on that. I think the much smaller bodies of birds is another likely factor in toxicity level.

Here is more on the subject of geophagy from Wild Health by Cindy Engel, 2003, pp. 64-69...

"High in the Virunga Mountains of Rwanda, the last few hundred mountain gorillas continue to mine yellow volcanic rock from the slopes of Mount Visoke, as they have done for generations. From the size of the caverns they have carved out under the roots of trees, it is evident that these vegetarian [sic] apes treasure this dirt. After loosening small pieces of rock with their teeth, they take small lumps of their powerful leathery hands and grind them into a fine powder before eating.

Since George Schaller first documented gorillas mining volcanic rock on nearby Mount Mikeno in 1963, several other field workers have observed similar behavior. Diane Fosse reported that gorillas were far more likely to rock in the dry season when their diet changed dramatically to bamboo, Lobelia, and Secio plants--all containing more toxic plant secondary compounds than their usual diet. Along with this change in diet came a synchronous increase in diarrhea (a natural response to rid the body of toxins). This extra loss of fluid, in the dry season, the tensely be a serious health problem for the gorillas. Fossey suggested that the mining and processing of the fine volcanic dust was a response to the seasonal change in diet.29

....

"Evidence that forest elephants are using the clay to self medicate against gastrointestinal upset is circumstantial but fascinating. These elephants feed primarily on these all year long except for the month September, when ripe fruit is so abundant that they changed eating mainly fruits. Leaves (as opposed to ripe fruits) generally contain many secondary compounds designed to deter herbivores from feeding on them. A shift from eating leaves to eating fruits would therefore dramatically reduce consumption of toxic secondary compounds -- a natural experiment to see if toxin consumption equates with clay consumption. The only month in which elephants reduce their visits the clay licks is during the fruit eating month, September!

In Africa, then, mountain gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys, and forest elephants appear to be eating clay to deal with toxins (or their effects) in their tropical forest diet. ....

"After studying geophagy in the Amazon Forest of Peru for many years, Charles Munn has concluded that nearly all vertebrates that feed on fruits, seeds, and leaves also eat clay. ...."33

In 1999 the hypothesis that macaws eat clay in order to deactivate plant toxins was tested experimentally by James Gilardi and a team of scientists at Davis, California. - p. 68 - [They found] that clay can indeed prevent the movement of plant alkaloids into the blood."

...meat eaters do occasionally eat dirt.... Tigers occasionally ingest [black micaceous] soil deliberately ... during November and December.  ...the primary benefit of clay consumption is in countering dietary toxins. In essence, eating earth allows animals to deal with the effects of unavoidable toxins.

References:
29. G. B. Schaller, The Year of the Gorilla (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964); D. Fossey, Gorillas in the Mist (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1983)
30. W. C. Mahaney, S. Aufreiter, and R. G. V. Hancock, "Mountain Gorilla Geophagy: A Possible Seasonal Behavior for Dealing with the Effects of Dietary Changes," International Journal of Primatology, 16(3) (1995):475-488.
31. W. C. Mahaney, R. G. V. Hancock, et al., "Geochemistry and Clay Mineralogy of Termite Mound Soils and the Role of Geophagy in Chimpanzees of Mahale Mountains, Tanzania," Primates, 37(2) (1996):121-134. For a review of geophagy in primates, see R. Krishnamani and W.C. Mahaney, "Geophagy Among Primates: Adaptive Significance and Ecological Consequences," Animal Behavior, 59 (2000):899-915.
33. Discussed in W. Mayer, "Feat of Clay," Wildlife Conservation (June 1999).

Maybe dental caries is something to expect for any frugivore with teeth, eventually.

Indeed, sites such as this one appear to indicate that dental caries is a standard for natural frugivores:-

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003996904002031

Precisely what I have been thinking, but I haven't investigated fruit-caused caries beyond humans and other primates and didn't have references to back it up, so I had thought it might be too upsetting to you to mention my speculation on that without supporting sources. I'm surprised to find that you apparently agree with me on this as well. Thanks for trying to provide a link--unfortunately, I don't have membership to access the one you provided.

It was pointed out that the other primates simply  used different, perhaps more effective methods to counter the dental caries(re mention of cashew antibacterial agents).

Yes, antibacterial foods can apparently help offset ingestion of fruit, as I reported (did you think I disagreed with what I reported?), but there would be no necessity for their dental benefits if the fruit in the diet did not contribute at all to caries in the first place. Glander points to BOTH fruit and cashew pedicels as being factors in the low caries rate among howlers--not just one or the other. AFAIK, the connection between fruit sugars and caries is not controversial (except among extreme vegans/vegetarians/fruitarians). I know of no credible scientist who claims there is no link. Do you know of one? One only has to read a fruitarian-oriented forum (or the accounts of former fruitarian-oriented people here) to find plenty of examples of fruit-heavy dieters reporting dental health problems. Even SuperInfinity, who remained unrepentently pro-fruitarianesque to the end, reported dental health problems.

I think that all of this (albeit much of it indirectly) lends credence to your hypothesis that humans are not fully adapted to cooking. It is because of these dental and other health issues of wild primates, giant pandas, etc., in addition to my own experience and yours and others here, that I have been increasingly leaning more strongly to your view that humans are much less adapted to cooking (at least high-heat cooking) than the "experts" believe. If chimps can eat lots of fruit for 6 million years and still get cavities from it, then it is no great surprise that humans might develop some health issues from eating cooked foods 250,000 or more years after they started doing so. In other words, humans can survive on a cooked-food diet, just as chimps can survive on mostly fruit, but that doesn't mean that an all-cooked diet is optimal for humans. I don't think I see it as severely deleterious a practice as you do, and we may focus on different evidence, but I think we basically agree on the main point.

[TylerDurden]

You're missing my point. I was suggesting that dental caries gotten from fruit-sugars  had nothing whatsoever to do with general health or adaptation/maladaptation to a fruitarian diet. It might well be an entirely separate characteristic, having nothing to do with either. So chimps may well be perfectly adapted to fruit.

As for geophagia, the link you gave indicated that there were multiple other explanations given for eating clay other than the antinutrient claims (such as getting vital minerals/nutrients from it(eg:- soil bacteria for the gut, anti-malarial activity etc.)

[PaleoPhil]

You're missing my point. I was suggesting that dental caries gotten from fruit-sugars  had nothing whatsoever to do with general health or adaptation/maladaptation to a fruitarian diet. It might well be an entirely separate characteristic, having nothing to do with either. So chimps may well be perfectly adapted to fruit.

I was talking mainly about specific health aspects--with dental health being the clearest case--more than general health. You may think that chimps are "perfectly" adapted with caries, but I propose they would be more perfect without them (as with the howlers), and raw vegans looking for a good diet would do well to look elsewhere than the chimp diet unless they also want caries, as I doubt any other primates are fully adapted to a high-fruit diet either. I also propose that these caries suggest that perfect dental adaptation to a high-fruit diet in a species with ancestors whose physiologies were more oriented to eating insects and leaves did not occur even after 6 million years--thus supporting your contention that some dietary adaptations take longer than 250,000 years (and some adaptations may never be "perfectly" complete). For example, if cooked food leads to caries or other dental health defects, we could posit that full adaptation has also not occurred to cooking. The giant panda's multiple health issues after more than 2 million years of eating mostly bamboo may be a preferable example for you, since it is more stark and you don't seem to like the chimp dental example.

As for geophagia, the link you gave indicated that there were multiple other explanations given for eating clay other than the antinutrient claims (such as getting vital minerals/nutrients from it(eg:- soil bacteria for the gut, anti-malarial activity etc.)

Nearly everything has multiple reasons. Because there are multiple reasons it doesn't somehow cancel out one of those multiple reasons. I think an objective review of the evidence supports what I've posited--including the article you provided--which is that the incomplete adaptations of giant pandas and chimps after millions of years call into question the claim that humans are completely or sufficiently adapted to cooking and suggests that a raw diet might be superior.

[TylerDurden]

One of the biggest scientific frauds of all time was the Marxist Stephen Jay Gould, who, most unfortunately, was until he was eventually debunked, viewed by some as an authority on palaeontology, despite his lack of scientific credentials in that area, IMO. Here's a relevant article:-

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sailer052202.asp

[TylerDurden]

The Daily Telegraph wrote a recent article about a moronic UK law which prohibits the introduction of species which do not normally live in the UK. What is ridiculous is that the UK government has designated wild boar as being "non-native". Wild boar of course have indeed been native to the British Isles up to the 13th century when the last wild boar was killed off by humans. So, the recent influx of wild boar into the English countryside(thanks, partly  due  to the efforts of some courageous animal-rights activists and to the 1987 hurricane) is merely restoring a natural balance that humans destroyed.

At any rate, from my POV, I rather like the notion of being able to buy raw wild boar from farmers' markets as a result of this so-called "incursion" of wild boar.

[TylerDurden]

Due to some silly custom of my own, I used to eat dates around Christmas,. I did so today, and it was a rather foolish  decision. You see, most dates, even organic ones, must have additives in them or something, as whenever I ate dates since going rawpalaeo, my eyes would leak some black fluid so that it would look as though I had make-up  around my eyes.

[William]

When I still had symptoms of ischemic heart disease, one date caused a symptom the quickest. Nothing was more poisonous. (Medjool)
I thought it might be the kind of sugar in them.
Are dates paleo? I never saw birds eat them, why not?

[TylerDurden]

When I still had symptoms of ischemic heart disease, one date caused a symptom the quickest. Nothing was more poisonous. (Medjool)
I thought it might be the kind of sugar in them.
Are dates paleo? I never saw birds eat them, why not?

  I'm sure dates were palaeo. I don't think they were artificially created by humans.

[PaleoPhil]

When I still had symptoms of ischemic heart disease, one date caused a symptom the quickest. Nothing was more poisonous. (Medjool)
I thought it might be the kind of sugar in them.
...

I think you're on the right track. Dried fruits have frequently been identified in this forum as high in sugar, and dates are notoriously so--especially the tasty and addictive Medjool dates. Here are some figures to ponder from Nutriondata.com:

Medjool datesL 16g sugars per 24g total weight - 67%
deglet noor dates: 93g sugars per 147g total weight - 63%
raisins, golden seedless: sugars 98g per 165g total weight - 59%
prunes: 66g 174g - 38%
Dried Blueberries, Wild Maine: 2g 28g - 7%

[TylerDurden]

I have nothing against dates, it's just that all dates sold in the UK seem to have preservatives of some sort added to them(or I wouldn't get that blackish muck coming out of my eyes after eating them). Plus, I believe they're routinely steamed.

[Paleo Donk]

...as whenever I ate dates since going rawpalaeo, my eyes would leak some black fluid so that it would look as though I had make-up  around my eyes.

Thats incredible that you have such a strong and bizarre reaction to dates. You seem to be exquisitely sensitive to changes in diet which perhaps is a good thing being that you can narrow down your food choices more accurately. You seem to be one of just a handful of people that have had negative effects after going zero carb, with your experience re having massive troubles with your teeth being the worst. Every other journal I have seen or remember (perhaps there is some survivorship bias going on here) has yielded very positive cumulative long term results

Also, what quantity of dates did you eat?

[TylerDurden]

Thats incredible that you have such a strong and bizarre reaction to dates. You seem to be exquisitely sensitive to changes in diet which perhaps is a good thing being that you can narrow down your food choices more accurately. You seem to be one of just a handful of people that have had negative effects after going zero carb, with your experience re having massive troubles with your teeth being the worst. Every other journal I have seen or remember (perhaps there is some survivorship bias going on here) has yielded very positive cumulative long term results

Also, what quantity of dates did you eat?

  I don't have a strong reaction to dates at all. Like I said, all I get is some blackish muck coming out of my eyes, looking like eye-shadow - no allergic reactions or reaction re blood-sugar or whatever. As for bad experiences with zero-carb, I'm actually one of a great multitude of people who do very badly indeed on zero-carb - I keep on hearing about people trying it(raw or cooked) and being forced to give it up within short order.

 Part of the reason why there are more ZC-oriented journals, here, is that this forum attracts people from the cooked-palaeolithic(and ZC) camps - plus, there is more messianic fervour with raw ZC as it bans even more foods than a raw, omnivorous diet does, with raw carbs being labelled unsuitable as well. Raw omnivores would likely be more blase about this sort of thing, and therefore less likely to start a journal.

[Paleo Donk]

Thats good to hear that you weren't otherwise physically affected. I assumed that having blackish muck emanating from your eyes and subsequently avoiding those type of dates again would be enough to say you had a strong reaction from them. I just got off the phone with an optometrist friend of mine who said she knew of no one reporting such colored muck and never learned about such in school. It might be worth finding out more about it.

As for the "great multitude" of people doing bad on zc, I have only heard of you and Yuri who have not had an overall net positive experience. Even the very few on the ZC board who've had consitent issues are doing better than their days as vlc/vegan/whatever they were doing previously. When looking at personal experience I tend to seek out the negatives far more than the positives as I gain much more from looking at where people went wrong and what to look out for in the future. From what I can gather from sneaking a peek at numerous journals is that your experiences have been an outlier with no one else really having anything on the order of your teeth ordeal. Clearly there is more info out there that I missed. Do you mind giving more detail on this great multitude of people who have had to give zc up?

[TylerDurden]

Thats good to hear that you weren't otherwise physically affected. I assumed that having blackish muck emanating from your eyes and subsequently avoiding those type of dates again would be enough to say you had a strong reaction from them. I just got off the phone with an optometrist friend of mine who said she knew of no one reporting such colored muck and never learned about such in school. It might be worth finding out more about it.

The eyes use tears etc. to get rid of detritus, so it's perfectly normal for the eyes to leak any toxins out. With other foods such as cooked meats, I might have minor diarrhea or some such, which would be a more vehement detox. As it is, there's no negative symptoms as such , no pain/no itchiness or whatever etc. etc., and nothing bad happened in previous times I consumed dates either, so it's of no consequence.

As for the "great multitude" of people doing bad on zc, I have only heard of you and Yuri who have not had an overall net positive experience. Even the very few on the ZC board who've had consitent issues are doing better than their days as vlc/vegan/whatever they were doing previously. When looking at personal experience I tend to seek out the negatives far more than the positives as I gain much more from looking at where people went wrong and what to look out for in the future. From what I can gather from sneaking a peek at numerous journals is that your experiences have been an outlier with no one else really having anything on the order of your teeth ordeal. Clearly there is more info out there that I missed. Do you mind giving more detail on this great multitude of people who have had to give zc up?

You'd have to read every post on this forum and other raw-related forums for posts mentioning in passing that they tried and failed with ZC. Simply put, those who do well on ZC will inevitably tend to boast about it constantly and post details about ZC trials etc. Those who do very badly on ZC diets, will mostly no longer mention ZC any more, since deteriorating on ZC, and stick quietly to raw, omnivorous diets(most such types, invariably experience serious health-problems within weeks, so inevitably for them it's a very short dietary experiment of no real interest).

In my own case, I very seriously doubt if I'd ever have mentioned my horrible health-problems on RZC here or even started this journal, unless I'd been extremely  uncomfortable with some of the more overhyped  claims by some ZCers elsewhere in the forum(including some truly appalling claims that pasteurised butter or pemmican or cooked, grainfed meats were supposedly "healthier" than raw carbs).

As regards forums etc., you should be careful not to judge by appearances. For example, the ZIOH forum is notoriously Stalinist in its approach to any members who report experiencing health-problems or who have views which differ from the strict orthodoxy of that forum - anyone who complains etc. gets quickly banned. So, reading the posts there would not be truly representative of what people are genuinely experiencing re ZC.

[cherimoya_kid]

ZC definitely has its time and place.  I had to go pretty much ZC for a while after my fruitarian days.  It's not for everyone, though, long-term.

[William]

And here's why it's not for everyone:

"I must warn all of you that it is very unlikely that very many will be able to eat as I do over the long term, or in fact, to follow any diet for long which is much different from the one you were trained to as a baby/child. This is because diet is learned much the same way language, dress and behaviour is, and is buried deep and inaccessible, a part of your acculturation/socialisation. The very thing which makes us human is that deep and almost instinctive complex of behaviour."

From:http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/Bear_s_Words_Of_Wisdom_about22.html

[TylerDurden]

Unfortunately, while zero-carb may be slightly more difficult to follow than a raw, omnivorous diet, the difference is so small as to mean the above claim is too negligible a factor to be significant(after all, it's tough enough for raw omnivores to eat raw meat, given social pressures etc.). In other words, people fail on raw zero-carb primarily due to health-issues, not for any other reason.