The complete Paleo Diet

[NaturalHealthDoctor]

The only issue with only eating animal priducts is that the Paleolithic people had a complete diet with no deficiencie.  Modern Paleo people do not have the same situation.  Paleo people did eat some non animal foods but even if they didn't they would have a complete diet.  This is becasue they ate organs, blood, bone marrow, bones, extra fat found around the organs(kidneys, intestines) and they ate the stomach and intestinal contents of their prey.  This is partially digested vegatation.  The muscle meat was actually eaten after all these things.  Carnivorous animals take the same approach.  So where are you going to get blood, one of the most nutritious parts of an animal?  You can eat fermented veggies as a replacement for the intestinal contents.  Our ancestors got vitamin C from eating adrenal glands, B12, B6, folate and kinds of other nutrients from eating liver, minerals from bones, all kinds of nutrients from blood etc.  I see some people today thinking that they can just eat muscle meat and be healthy. 

[TylerDurden]

Well, I can get hold of raw blood from my raw wild hare carcasses as they are vacuum-packed(c. 1 or 2 pints per carcass, and the carcass itself is full of blood of itself). Not that I am RZC.

[PaleoPhil]

I don't know anyone here who eats only muscle meat (is that even possible in the long term?). Not even the Zero Carbers at ZIOH do that--they tend to eat plenty of animal fats too and some of them eat organs. I agree that it's important for Zero Carbers to eat more than just muscle meat, with fats and organs preferentially selected.

[chucky]

There are few people keeping blogs about their WOE of eating only steak,fat and water.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, of course, but fat is not muscle meat. Do you know anyone who eats only muscle meat?

[pioneer]

You've got that right Naturalhealthhealer. I eat organs every single day, and keep it in a variety. What would consist of a balanced organ diet? I have been eating liver, muscle, suet, and heart. Thats probably not enough though.

I see some people today thinking that they can just eat muscle meat and be healthy. 

You do make a point, but wouldnt you say that bloody muscle meat, fruit, and veggies is at least more nutrient dense than sad. Not endorsing just muscle meat at all.

[raw]

Yes, of course, but fat is not muscle meat. Do you know anyone who eats only muscle meat?

my mom is eating only muscle meats. she still eating rice (wild rice), but her excuse is she is eating everyday very small amount (comparing to my country where people eat big bowl of rice 2 or 3 times a day). she still suffering and i try my best to improve her health.

[PaleoPhil]

It's dangerous to only eat muscle meat and a little rice. Why won't she eat fat?

[klowcarb]

I eat beef and pork mostly, TONS of eggs, with extra yolks, and grassfed butter (oh noes!). I'm doing just fine.

[UB]

I eat beef and pork mostly, TONS of eggs, with extra yolks, and grassfed butter (oh noes!). I'm doing just fine.

you ever done a blood test? Results? Just curious 

My doc always says: cancer doesn't hurt until it's too late!!! Maybe 'feeling good' or 'doing just fine' is not enough, sometimes.

Not that I want to scare anyone 

[pioneer]

You can not get cancer on this diet it is not possible unless you live in a very polluted environment, which 90% of the polluted battle is won when you change the diet. Cancer is actually a natural process that happens every day in everyone. So theoretically it is not bad. However when the process fails, it is bad. Cancer in it's natural sense is called trophoblasts, which occur in a growing fetus. Trophoblast cells result in hyperplasia, thus growing a fetus from 0-10lbs. Once the baby's pancreas starts producing the enzyme trypsin around the 8th month, hyperplasia and trophoblast cell multiplication ceases. This is why raw food is so powerful, all of the enzymes are in the food as opposed to 0 in cooked food. I dont have any clinical experience with this and am not a physician, so check with your doctor first, but in the RPD world, we feel that cancer patients would do best on a diet of as much raw pancreas as one can eat, while simultaneously eliminating cooked food.

Food for though: All grain products have trypsin inhibitors. So by eating grains, you are inhibiting your pancreas from producing trypsin to stop trophoblast hyperplasia.

[TylerDurden]

Actually, even wild animals on natural raw diets in unpolluted areas can get cancer.

[pioneer]

But it is very rare, and even at best, there must be an obscure reason why they got cancer. Mamalian bodies were designed to deal with cancer on their own, provided that they have the nutrients to do so. I'm not sure you've seen the lengthy statistics of how in the US, in 1900 cancer ratio was 1:30, now it is 1:2. Obviously there is a correlation between modernization and cancer. The same can hold true for animals and has been displayed all over the world. Prime examples are aligators in florida getting cancer/ feminine characteristics/ lack of reproducing because of pollution. Also, the fish in the pacific are getting plenty of cancer due to the accumulated trash pile the size of texas. I agree with you animals can get cancer in their natural habitats away from cancer, but in my knowledge cancer in animals is very rare without human intervention.

The many sources and articles I have looked at refuting my stance say that animals do in fact get cancer in the wild, but it is largely correlated with air and water pollution. Also, much information is highly biased on this topic. There was a study I read that "proved" wild animals get cancer rates similar to humans. However, when digging up more on the study I found that the animals used in the study were animals from the zoo.

Also, many dissenters argue that tasmanian devils' cancer rates are threatening their species. However, what they dont say is that the whole thing started because humans attempted to breed groups of them to increase their population, however when in human care, tasmanian devils contracted a man made cancer causing virus. Now, after being let out in the wild tasmanian devils with the virus can cause others to contract it and get cancer as well. The information on that topic is extremely filtered because it is actually a huge problem in australia as scientists are trying to control the population of tasmanian devils from spreading the disease.

In theory, yes all animals can get cancer in the form of trophoblasts, however all wild animals have a mechanism to control that. Cancer should be looked at as a healing process gone wrong. Scientists are actually working right now to use and manipulate cancer in regenerating tissue.

I am very interested in studying the sources you looked at for this topic. This would help me in my writing of cancer. If you can't find them, its cool, but if you can, that'd be great.

[TylerDurden]

There's very little research in that area. I only found out via some obscure off-line scientific report which mentioned that sharsk do indeed get cancer in the wild. I'm sure cancer-rates are much less for those wild animals on natural, raw diets, of course.

[pioneer]

This topic has always interested me Tyler. I feel that it is hard to imagine that before humans were around animals got cancer at all. Also, you should check the works of recent MD Dr. Tullio Simoncini. He theorizes that cancer is merely a fungus which can be killed via sodium bicarbonate. I saw a video on TV where an ant is taken out of the colony and left far away to die. A time lapse videography showed that after a couple weeks, fungus broke out of the ant's head after it was dead and spread all over the place. It seems possible that if this theory is correct, it would explain why animals can get cancer naturally. It may be true that there are both fungal and general cancer as originally thought (in other words, two branches of cancer). The doc's studies showed that his patients after injecting sodium bicarbonate right on the cancer, the tumor would die off. This research is happening right now over in europe, but the information is being suppressed because it seemingly would insult orthodox research.

[UB]

You can not get cancer on this diet it is not possible unless you live in a very polluted environment, which 90% of the polluted battle is won when you change the diet. Cancer is actually a natural process that happens every day in everyone. So theoretically it is not bad. However when the process fails, it is bad. Cancer in it's natural sense is called trophoblasts, which occur in a growing fetus. Trophoblast cells result in hyperplasia, thus growing a fetus from 0-10lbs. Once the baby's pancreas starts producing the enzyme trypsin around the 8th month, hyperplasia and trophoblast cell multiplication ceases. This is why raw food is so powerful, all of the enzymes are in the food as opposed to 0 in cooked food. I dont have any clinical experience with this and am not a physician, so check with your doctor first, but in the RPD world, we feel that cancer patients would do best on a diet of as much raw pancreas as one can eat, while simultaneously eliminating cooked food.

Food for though: All grain products have trypsin inhibitors. So by eating grains, you are inhibiting your pancreas from producing trypsin to stop trophoblast hyperplasia.

pioneer

"cancer" was just an example. There are many other diseases and I just chose cancer out of many. I was just curious about klocarb's blood work. She always mentioned she feels fine and doing good. But her blood work may tell something else. Is all.

[pioneer]

pioneer

"cancer" was just an example. There are many other diseases and I just chose cancer out of many. I was just curious about klocarb's blood work. She always mentioned she feels fine and doing good. But her blood work may tell something else. Is all.

I know, sorry, I digress sometimes.

[UB]

I know, sorry, I digress sometimes.

hey, nothing to be sorry about