Author Topic: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..  (Read 44466 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2011, 09:08:28 am »
He seems sane enough by my standards, I was thinking that someone like him could be made respectable and as long as we had some additional specialist and  scientific advocates that were respectable and could back up what our gurus say, then its a good start.. I am not sure if there is a perfect guru out in the woodwork. Celebrities like Mel Gibson are also judged to wacky to be taken seriously. What; Does it take some buttoned down collage professor type person to sell this diet to the masses?



I posted this over a month ago before I really heard much of what he has said recently. I still stand by much of what Danniel has discovered since his conversion to our side and I find him very righteous and rational.

He is also a good sales man, and for some curious reason I now want to go out and get some cacao, I have heard it goes well with coconut, and I eat a lot of coconut.

I also could go for some raw water right now
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2011, 09:19:22 am »
I Think his view that eating traditionally perpared meals with the highest quality ingredients along with large servings of raw or rare meats may at least be a good beginning for the masses that would never go for totally raw. I kind of have a feeling that he is still playing the sales man and he has different messages for different audiences. Most of those health freaks he is Trying to educate are to hung up on somethings to ever accept that raw carnivorous diets are healthy, so he sells a more moderate message , even if he himself is eating raw meat by the pound and only uses cooked and fermented plant as condiments.
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2011, 09:37:54 am »
He's still a hypocrite, then. I mean, one can sell stuff to the masses while still making it clear that raw is better and doing mostly raw oneself - Mercola is such an example.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2011, 10:15:51 am »
No, the idea that cooking can play a role in health is blatantly false. You are making all sorts of obviously false assumptions. You , for example, state blindly that  HGs following Weston-Price-style cooked diets in the past were super-healthy, which just isn't true - I mean, all these native peoples died like flies when exposed to diseases transmitted by colonials, hardly a sign  of a super-healthy immune-system, plus actual data such as Mann's study on the Masai(re atherosclerosis in the Masai), and other data I read on the Maori, for example(I had a few past threads on that subject), show quite clearly that they had all sorts of health-problems .  I mean I know some people worship Weston-Price as some sort of infallible deity but he was just a mere mortal who made many mistakes/errors of assumption. He did a whirlwind tour of the world without any serious checking of his claims.

yes, we've heard that all HGs and people in the last 250,000 years have all been tremendously unhealthy, one big crapshoot of disease.

I already agree that adopting a HG diet for a modern person probably is not enough to correct problems
I also agree in that we don't need to dwell on what we don't know or that is speculative/romantic, just what we can prove.

Look at people today. Whenever people are cited to living long and eating garbage..what do we/they say.."well they ate organic real food growing up". did they eat raw meat? raw fat? Likely they did eat raw milk and dairy and probably even some of stuff DV recommends. I honestly now find it unbelievable that I used to argue the same that people were not 'adapted' to cooked foods and that cooking was some fall from grace that distorted everything. Perhaps the wording is not right in the biological sense of adaptation, but people can create all the aspects of what it is to be healthy and reproduce for generations while eating cooked foods. They cannot on poor nutrition programs, even those that are raw. Many of the programs people present as raw and healthy do not seem to create the health of HGs (in my estimation) in terms of being actually able to survive based on internal and external robustness in the wild, so the fact that HGs health was not up to a certain standard shows really negative light on such diets I would think. Luckily I do suspect HGs were fairly healthy, so I'm not too upset that as a modern person with poor inheritance and health that my present state from eating raw is not so shabby in comparison. Again the point really is not that raw food diets are bad (although just speaking for myself here), but that cooking is not valueless.


Then there's that nonsense claim that cooking got started with homo erectus. Only that fraud Wrangham dares to actually make that claim, among scientists - the vast majority of palaeoanthropologists state clearly that cooking occurred c. 250,000 years ago, which is actually about the same time as archaic homo sapiens appeared, which was not much different from modern humans, evolutionarily-speaking(Wrangham is merely a chimp-researcher by actual past expertise given his CV so cannot be remotely trusted). More to the point, PP has already cited that point about giant pandas which demonstrated that a creature can evolve into a different species while still remaining unadapted to a particular diet(in this case, bamboo), despite millions of years of evolution. If the giant panda could not adapt to a raw food like bamboo after such a long time, then it is very highly unlikely that humans have adapted to cooked foods.
yeah, I have no idea, I don't see how one can prove him any more wrong than he thinks he is right or how it matters if its more than 200,000 years anyway. Its not important whether a physiological adaptation is necessary..because the foods are still the same foods, just altered.

So likely these were foods we have always eaten as homo sapeins which separated us from the previous model. Makes sense to me. There is in fact measurable detriments I guess one could call it..but then again you can see worse detriments and worse processing manifesting in different kinds of human traits today very quickly which shows how less adapted we are to those. In addition, modern science and medicine certainly believes in these kinds of adaptations and mutations as happening all the time, so I think as usual you are picking and choosing what is 'scientific'. Havn't you admitted that some people have adapted to dairy and others have not? Even if this is a 'mutation' (in other words not a good type of adaptation) the people seemed to have a pretty big advantage when it came to..uh living. as with cooking in regard to harsh climates. Of course this does not prove it is good like with dairy and other things. I don't place a value on it either way..just seems to indeed happen as a phenomena.

The other point is that there isn't anything that a cooked diet can provide that a raw one can't. At the very least, a raw diet can provide the same benefit as a cooked diet, and, in most cases, will be superior to a cooked diet.

Its absolutely impossible to quantify this other than peoples experiences. Particularly for people that do eat raw meat (ie not adversed to it) I think it makes sense to tip ones hat somewhat to someone in trusting that they perhaps will eat other foods for nutrtional reasons. If you have ever had 'maca' you would know what I mean.

The whole point however is its either impossible or detrimental to try to eat the vast majority of plant foods raw, and many of the varieties that can be eaten raw are entirely artificial and harmful for people to eat the way they do. We already know your opinions and disagreement on these issues but to say these things are 'the same' is just inaccurate. how are they possibly the same if they contain completely different foods and have different results...even on predominantly raw eaters that implement them. I can add one type of mushroom to my diet, and there is no organ meat or fruit that will have similar nutrient profiles. How is it possible that my diet (in a nutrition sense, not 'toxicity') is the same eating the same exact stuff, plus other stuff?

of course you are missing the boat on why this perspective is valuable for people that want to increase their health without the same old dogma and rules.

Just as a vegan will claim they can get all their vitamins and proteins from plants ( even disregarding the accuracies of that) the important thing for them to recognize is the materials in animals and plants are different. So even on RAF if one could get the various nutrients from regular consumption of organ meats they are not the same as the nutrients in those plant foods. I have no problem with people claiming to get all their nutrition from raw animal foods, but clearly certain processed plants (raw, fermented, cultured) will give nutrition that added raw plants or fruits or even certain organ meats will not. These are totally different nutrients even if they are the same A,C,K etc... Afterall the organs will likely be from pasture and not wild sources so they actually arn't up-taking and processing these plants as usually stated.

on paper of course a raw diet should have more nutrition than a cooked diet, but the diets automatically become limited for one, and two from a omnivore spectrum the raw plant sources won't provide the minerals and vitamins from the plants that must be processed, either cooked, juiced or cultured in some way.

Whatever the case, we can rest assured that if DV is so craven as to believe in Wrangham's unscientific drivel, then he cannot be taken seriously any more.

seems harsh
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 04:16:06 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2011, 05:14:12 pm »
You've made a number of errors of assumption re the above post. First of all, your claims that raw plant foods are all bad is merely a pro-ZC bias, which is flawed. Granted, cooking makes some plant foods more nutritious by reducing the antinutrient-levels but this benefit is cancelled out by cooking as cooking also gets rid of all the enzymes, all the bacteria, and adds some nasty extra heat-created toxins to boot. The very lame argument you and others have used before is to state that modern cultivated raw fruits are nothing like raw, wild fruits, but not only does the exact same argument apply to raw domesticated animal foods as well as regards raw wild meats, but cooking merely makes things worse by adding heat-created toxins etc - besides, no one with any common sense advocates cooking raw fruits, only that cooking raw veg is best, as fruits' nutrients are very easily destroyed by cooking.  Plus, most such pro-cooked-food-advocates are not advocating eating cooked wild game or cooked wild plant foods, but are advocating eating cooked grainfed meats and the like.

The other thing is that I am not suggesting that raw is always good in any combination nor that cooking is entirely valueless - after all, some people here have got 90 percent of their benefits from going cooked-palaeo and only 10 percent from going raw. So cooking, if carefully carried out, can provide a few benefits, but, of course, nowhere near as many health-benefits as going rawpalaeo would, as all cooked diets add a hefty burden of heat-created toxins to the human body in question, let alone other aspects such as loss of enzymes/bacteria etc. Now, one can do gimmicks such as exercise or caloric restriction in order to reduce the levels of those toxins a bit, but the only truly effective way to get rid of almost all the toxin-load in the body is to go rawpalaeo. So things like atherosclerosis etc. are inevitable on any cooked diet.


The other point re cooked veg is that, sure, cooking makes some previously inedible raw vegetables more digestible, but that, of course, has resulted in huge health-problems in the case of grains. Citing raw mushrooms is pointless as they are a rather poor food, nutrionally-speaking, even when cooked, sort of famine-food. Same applies to cooked tubers - I recall, in the last month or so,pointing out, via a study, to PP in a previous discussion that a tribe he cited as being hefty tuber-consumers actually viewed them as an inferior, last-resort food even when cooked. So the fact that cooking makes some wholly unsuitable, unhealthy  foods release a bit more in the way of nutrients(vitamins /minerals) as a result of destroying the antinutrients is irrelevant.


As for my criticism of DV's praise of Wrangham's notions, that's justified. Any careful perusal of the few key articles on Wrangham shows that the scientific community views Wrangham as a fraud, so DV is simply pandering to the public - he knows that if he praises cooking  he will get more followers of his diet, so he's willing to be dishonest for purposes of profit.

And cooked foods are not merely the same foods mildly altered. Cooked foods are entirely different kinds of foods from raw foods re category as they contain heat-created toxins, lack bacteria/enzymes etc.

As for the claims re mutation/adaptation, they are not relevant. First of all, as I pointed out on another thread, if dairy-adaptation really was so useful for mankind's survival then one would logically expect to find that most humans are fully adapted to all dairy. Yet, 75 percent of the world's population are lactose-intolerant, proving the opposite. Plus, one can reasonably argue that dairy was merely used as an inferior, substitute low-quality food to replace the past large amounts of meats HGs ate in pre-Neolithic times. And there are indications that dairy-consumption is directly linked to schizophrenia and other kinds of conditions, so some nasty side-effects result therefrom.

The notion that cooking improves survival in harsh climes is, of course, somewhat negated by the evidence of the Eskimoes who ate large amounts of raw meats despite living in arctic conditions. At best, one could claim that if an HG tribe lived in desert-like conditions that they would be forced to cook in order to deal with previously inedible vegetables, but, of course, such an HG tribe would be better off, healthwise, living elsewhere and eating raw, high-quality foods instead, as things like grains, tubers are suboptimal foods.

"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2011, 10:22:02 pm »
heh, yes me and my ZC notions. I think if we were to actually gather the statistics of this site, most peoples diets would be fairly restrictive of raw plant foods (mainly fruits) with sort of either a visible indifference or enthusiastic support to non-sweet, wild, fatty or cooked, juiced or brewed plants, herbs, and fungi.  I don't see what most cooked food advocates have to do with anything since that doesn't seem to be the discussion. You do peruse and generalize in regards to Wrangham and others. If you actually read DV's info he is talking about cooking wild foods and (probably cooking) game foods and not grain-fed meats and avoiding things in the supermarket (or farmers market that has similar hybrid foods). He advocates eating very little domesticated foods, he just happens to place a different hierarchy on which things produce health with natural/wild foods and quantities instead of the converse which is unnatural but raw foods/quantities. Everyone can jump on this with his/her own experiences, but its not wrong by default just because it embraces cooking..one has to actually look at which things predate and casuate to health and disease.

If 25% of people are not lactose intolerant late in life..then it would seem its possible for human beings to develop adaptations to foods that did not exist as foods millions of years ago. I'd say that is fair closure to that discussion. Many scientists believe that not only are we adapted to cooking, but also micro processing into pills which despite their lacking of any natural enzymes of fibers do seem to be assimilated and cause various things to happen inside the body. To me we should be focused on what the consequences of cooking (both con and pro) as opposed to sweeping statements about adaptation. Of course Wrangham is doing the same but whether Wrangham has any ground to stand on at all from a scientific standpoint I do not know, but it certainly seems to be accurate in terms of being able to uptake nutrition even with enzymeless food etc..

The thing that bothers me is that you are now citing Eskimos as healthy. Anyway I wasn't talking talking about Eskimos..but todays people eating RAF. I've eaten raw meats outside in below freezing temps and its pretty rough. If I was eating cooked meats it might not make much of a difference, but the point is is that the Eskimos obviously had a heartiness that many people will lack despite how raw their diet is, so the idea that that HGs were unhealthy is sort of ridiculous if we are to define what contemporary people eating all raw propose as 'health'. As for the pox infected blankets thing, to my knowledge one of the main pillars of raw foodism is that infectious disease does not exist, so I at least have always been under the impression that these people did not die out immediately, but through slower term integration of western habits or were just plain murdered. I really don't know myself, but inclined to believe that this isn't really a good case against the Native American's health either way.

Some raw fruitarians in Europe I have spoken to actually do cook fruits, particularly since many 'vegetables' are in fact fruits and do need to be cooked (to be assimilated healthfully), but I agree by and large that we are talking about making fruit and veg edible that would not be otherwise. Removing such, you have a very limited spectrum of foods and many of these are problematic (in mine and others opinions and experiences). This is sort of indisupted and has nothing to do with ZC In fact there are plenty of people way more omnivorous then me that consume ~0 sweet fruits, as there are raw plant based dieters that consume ~0 sweet fruits. The idea that we are going to eat domesticated meats so who cares is actually not appropriate criticism of this..uh criticism. As pointed out by many people even on these forums, The dietary compositions are what is important. I know you disagree, but the tools and processes have been with us for up to 250,000 years plus now. So basically what this boils down to is that eating cooked animal fats or raw diary fats seem to deliver for many people far better for these compositions than excessive quantities of modern sugary fruits that would not exist in nature. One can certainly avoid these things (cooked fat, dairy) but I believe the phenomena is correct and well documented. The idea that these things also carry (possible) detriments does not discount that these diets will work even if there are better solutions. More importantly, people that do have such 'problems' with sweet fruits, usually can even eat high-glycemic cooked starches, so that is a particular case where cooking can not be dismissed if one chooses to eat the sugary/starchy plant foods.  Obviously if people can use these things and experience greater health, then they arn't useless. Merely stating one can get by on raw food diets without such is exactly the argument people can use to justify any cooked or processed diet leading to longevity. The key is which strategies actually are going to work in the real world.

As to DV getting more followers to his diet, you have to actually look at what he sells..which is really just a handful of stuff. There are some diet gurus that vehemently propose an entirely different diet with 0 products. Just because someone is not selling anything doesn't mean they have the right answers or vice versa.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 10:27:42 pm by KD »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2011, 04:43:44 am »
This site is hardly representative of RVAF diets as a whole, being just a tiny sliver of the RVAF diet community worldwide. Most RVAFers generally only eat a small amount of raw animal foods(raw dairy and raw eggs being the most common RAF foods eaten).   We just represent the meat-heavy camp.

My comments re most pro-cooked-food-advocates favouring unhealthy supermarket. grainfed meats mostly is pertinent as you are, somewhat hypocritically,  accusing  raw food dieters  of often not caring about the quality of their raw foods, despite the fact that most raw foodists constantly harp on about the issue of grassfed meats, organic fruit etc. - DV is a rare exception to the usual pro-cooked-advocate but that's all.


Re adaptation:-  You are quite clearly confused as to what adaptation actually implies. Genuine full adaptation requires the food to be easily digested without problems, without any side-effects at all. Cooked foods contain heat-created toxins which harm human health over time, and, so far, not one single study has shown that we either are immune to all heat-created  toxins or that we need to consume any heat-created toxins for health reasons. Similiarly, giant pandas can eat and digest raw bamboo more or less, but, becasue they have a naturally carnivorous digestive system, they are still ill-adapted to digesting bamboo. As regards enzymes, the point is not that one needs enzymes to digest cooked foods, but that, because cooked foods contain no enzymes, the body is forced to produce far more enzymes from its own organs than necessary to digest the relevant cooked food, which leads to the wearing out of such organs, thus accelerating aging of such organs, and other long-term side-effects.

Also lactose-intolerance is only one tiny aspect of problems with dairy. Other issues include lactose inhibiting copper-intake, the skewed calcium:magnesium ratio of dairy causing magnesium-deficiency( I have come across people who were never lactose-intolerant who got magnesiul-deficiency as a result of consuming dairy). And then there's the hormonal issues, plus dairy has been linked to the incidence of conditions like schizophrenia etc.


Re Eskimoes:- I did NOT state that the Eslimoes were healthy, merely that, directly contrary to your claims, they survived quite well in a very harsh climate on a diet consisting of large amounts of raw meats, thus showing that cooked foods are not required in a harsh, Arctic environment.

Re "pox-infected blankets":- That notion re blankets may be correct:-

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

Whatever the case, smallpox-infected blankets were not used in other contacts between Europeans and native HGs in other countries, yet the HGs there also died like flies, very soon after contact, not just after decades of adopting "white-man"s food". As to the notion of infectious diseases not existing, that is not a RVAF diet belief, merely something that Aajonus primarily believes in - and even he states that such diseases came about as a result of eating cooked foods.


The fact that a minority of raw vegans never eat fruit is irrelevant - many RVAFers eat raw fruits without issues, and most raw vegans actually eat a diet very high in raw fruits. And the fact that a tiny number of fruitarians cook a tiny number of their fruits is meaningless - besides, even cooked-foodists usually eat their fruits raw, not cooked.

As for your claims re raw foods/cooked-foods:- I did NOT state that one can "get by" on raw foods, I made it very, very clear that raw foods are WAY superior to cooked foods. The only exceptions are unhealthy things like grains or other antinutrient-heavy plant foods which should not be eaten in either cooked or raw form. Calling raw foods "problematic" is moronic as that only applies to things like raw grains that virtually no one eats. Most fruits can be eaten raw without any issues, apart from a tiny number of (R)ZCers in a population, and some veg can be eaten raw without issues(ie all those without high antinutrient-levels). So, cutting out raw broccoli and such antinutrient-heavy veg is hardly a limited diet when there are raw meats, raw organ-meats, some raw veg, raw eggs, raw honey, some raw mushrooms and raw fruits available. Sure, cooking allows extra (poor-quality) foods to be made more edible, such as tubers, but why waste effort on pointless cooking when one can eat much higher-quality raw foods instead?

More to the point, given that 75 percent of the world's population suffer from lactose-intolerance and ALL cooked-food-eaters suffer from problems in old-age gained from decades of absorbing heat-created toxins from cooked foods(re arthritis etc.), it is  ridiculous to suggest that cooked animal foods or raw dairy are superior to raw fruits when food-intolerance to raw fruits is correspondingly tiny by comparison.

A guru who doesn't sell something has no real vested interests, and will therefore be far less corruptible than a guru who makes lots of money from his followers and who will therefore always try to sell people the most expensive supplements available. Didn't someone mention DV selling really expensive crap such as deer antlers in a recent post? Whatever the case, DV took the easy route in order to gain more followers  - it wouldn't surprise me if he only ate raw meats in public solely for shock value so as to generate media attention.








"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2011, 05:38:43 am »
our foods are not as nutritious as those of the Inuit, so therefore theres a total possibility that we need to find those nutrient sources elsewhere then pastured meats and organic fruits. To me this is a reasonable concept. It doesn't make cooking foods (particularly meat) necessary, it just means people should be open minded in regards to their nutrition and tools for reversing illness and creating health. I know personally that I would have a hard time surviving in MY climate nevermind the Inuit's from a pure perspective of health or as I labeled internal and external robustness. I'm not talking about needing to warm up from cooked foods, nor a skill set or food availability. I'd wager that many people are in the same boat who claim that they are eating the most superior diet, that is all that I said regarding that.

you just constantly are making sweeping remarks: reducing 'vegetables' to broccoli, calling mushrooms a non-nutritous food when fungi represent an ENIRE KINGDOM of life flush with nutrtion not found anywhere else, that 'fruit intollerance' is small etc....These are just huge exaggerations or underestimations.  Your facts and 'history' is also inaccurate. Most of the major camps (natural hygiene, instincto, Primal, many independt folks here) within raw do not believe in infectious disease and not just Aajonus. Eating a heavily raw fruit diet is a very recent resurgence of an old concept, prior to that >5 years ago virtually all raw vegetarians limited fruit consumption and now the same major players preach the same thing backed up by 1000s of peoples experiences and lab data. you can't just wave this off, sorry. Its impossible to eat modern fruits 'without issues' and theres acres of research on that from all the LC camps as well as the long term raw vegans which includes massive research there too. On Fruit..not just table sugar. You can certainly do what you want, other than label these things 'fringe' or inconsequential or pick and choose between the science and lab results that can literally see blood turn to shit.

Its certainly nothing to stress over. I eat some fruits but not because I believe they are optimal sources of nutrition, other than a few vitiams that arn't easy to get. The problem is people that choose to ignore the research and peoples results are  under the false assumption that raw fruits are unequivocally superior to other foods or that they are more natural than other sources of nutrtion hundreds of thousands of years old, which they arn't in either respect. If they actually looked at things rationally or simply went outside this would be quite clear.

Also I would argue that very few healthful foods would be able to fit your definition of what we are actually adapted to eating as virtually anything can cause both symptoms and actual disease. Most people that eat plant foods accept that nutrition is valuable only in certain doses. If cooking could be absolutely proven to cause detriments, this will never translate as poorly as people eating diets that go against people's actual needs , alter their metabolism negatively or feed internal problems. Its hard to speak towards everyone on the planet, but plenty of people even from raw backgrounds have adopted Mark Sisson's approach and increased their health. increasing their raw fruit consumption is disastrous->ineffective at best. Its irrelevant how 'unhealthy' such diets can seem from a raw perspective, as the only point is you can't unilaterally say a raw fruit (because it is raw) is better than a cooked vegetable or raw dairy fat. In fact i''ve said this so many times its becoming ridiculous. How is even a single persons experience not valid enough for you to change your mind here? The caveat has to be larger than 'ZCers that have problems'. These foods are completely different and much more nutritional rich regardless of any health problems..just particularly better for any specific health problems.

As for which individual foods are better than other foods, i'm not going to argue that any further, the proof is in peoples health. I never said people on "RVAF' diets don't care about the quality of their foods, only that they can choose nutrient poor or destructive choices based on total fictions. On top of that its my personal belief that many times people don't even score basic assessments on what it means to be healthy, and then will try only to 'prove' such by listing 'facts' about raw rather than actual results. Raw is an excellent tool to create results and perhaps the best diet, but people need to prove this in every case and every goal if they want to criticize others. This is particularly true if the criticized have extended experiments in raw and raw animal foods. To criticize people as being unhealthy or providing an unhealthful message based on what one thinks conceptually..rather than actually witnessing some of the contradictions of such beliefs or the fact that they actually ARE healthy..makes no sense to me.

That is unless there is some way for them to prove that the criticizers have the healthiest tissues, internal and external organs, metabolism, endurance, speed, reproductive abilities, emotional poise, quality of life etc...

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2011, 06:36:37 am »
Re wild-meats claims/domesticated meats:- This is meaningless. After all, RVAFers, far more than cooked-foodists, as a whole, try to go for higher quality foods such as raw wild fruits/raw wild game  plus they actively seek out domesticated raw  grassfed meats which are superior to other kinds of domesticated raw meats. Now, for one to suggest that all raw, domesticated meats, however grassfed, cannot heal by comparison to raw wild game(such as eaten by the Inuit) smacks of orthorexia.

Re mushrooms etc:-

It is irrelevant that mushrooms consist of an entire kingdom. As a whole, they are a food rather lacking in nutrition, therefore being merely a last-resort food, at best.  The claim re raw vegans only eating raw fruit in very recent times sounds truly laughable as a claim. I mean, rawists/raw vegans have been eating raw fruits for decades. And the notion that raw fruits cause all these mythical health-problems is similiarly biased. Only a few people get such issues - which is why raw omnivores outnumber RZCers by far.

As for your claims re raw fruits, you are again falsifying my claims, as usual. I have not compared single raw fruits to single cooked meats. What matters is an overall diet. So a raw 100 percent fruitarian diet does not , over time, provide one with all the nutrients one needs. Similiarly, a cooked-palaeo diet will add on large amounts of heat-created toxins, thus burdening the body with all sorts of health-problems over time. Besides, I have come across far more reports of real improvement in health on raw diets whereas reports of recovery on cooked-palaeodiets are pathetic, if only  by comparison to raw(ie better than SAD, and that's it).


As for the notion that RVAFers don't believe in infectious disease, like I said, this is primarily an Aajonism; with, granted NH and Instincto being also adherents. The rest of the RVAF diet world don't give it much credence as a notion.

Arguing that raw foodists can make bad choices about which foods are really healthy for them is, of course, utterly irrelevant - after all, the exact same point applies also(and to a greater extent) to cooked-palaeos. After all, many cooked-palaeos don't care how much they cook their meats, some even happily eat unhealthy, cooked grainfed meats, and most don't care about raw wild game, other than a tiny few like Cordain. By contrast, RVAFers are mostly into organic/grassfed/raw/wild etc.

"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2011, 07:05:25 am »
Tyler, if I am ever foolish enough to get into a 'conversation' with you again, perhaps you could do me the service of just talking about the individuals in question, or perhaps the other people on this board. I can't exactly be responsible for what everyone in every camp eats nevermind the mystical band of RVAFers you keep hidden from us. We are talking about basically what one person is promoting or my own comments. I can say I've met quite a few long term raw foodists who they themselves interacted with tons of people. I've also met some cooked paleo dieters which I consider to be fairly healthy for modern people. I turn and talk about what people on this forum are actually engaged in and you bring up a bunch of other people i've never heard about or met. If people HERE are employing things to their benefit when they wern't previously eating meat and fruit, obviously we can't promote such diets as always being superior to help every issue. Its not that just meat and fruit DON'T cure things or even just meats..its that other things can potentially have value. again..seems not very confrontational to me.

as for mushrooms being a last resort food, that doesn't even make sense because like wild fruits they actually arn't capable of providing significant energy. These things - as with herbs - in nature were eaten with intelligence and with purpose, not as major sources of energy. For whatever reasons people at some point began to harness even more energy from plants through cooking, of which some things are arguably worse than others. Now people try to replicate the same dependence on those plant sources of energy with raw fruits..which isn't realistic or accurate. On top of that there are the other issues I suggested, but that alone is the hypocrisy in criticizing the other methods outright that are more accurate to our history and environment, as well as the foods we can source locally.

You made a claim about NAs that i'm sure very few raw foodists i've ever spoken to would be on board with so I really again don't know who these other raw foodists are - particularly meat eaters - who see natives as unhealthy. I can appreciate you questioning the health of HGs and particularly how their diets can or cannot translate to health today, but you artn't exactly engaging with the premis which was to state that most people today eating raw can not survive in nature probably AT ALL never-mind trying to replicate how they eat through just raw food that would be available (even then). To me this is totally fine, who cares really. at the same time doing so has certain repercussions. Even if one is to deny this, the very unnatural design of such diets provides very little leverage to criticize methods that have been part of the human race very much since practically the beginning of our 'humanity'. Now if we are going to talk about how eating raw over cooked is beneficial..that is fine...but one does not have to go to extremes to see that certain types of processing can have value over diets that contain even a seemingly healthful grouping of modern fruits and pastured meats.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 07:13:13 am by KD »

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2011, 07:54:52 am »
Quote
the mystical band of RVAFers you keep hidden from us

Just wish to clear this up, that Geoff / Tyler has been promoting raw paleo diet for a long time.  He started this forum.  And prior to this forum manages a thriving raw paleo diet at yahoo groups has a good number of members for many years before this forum even got started.  Plus Geoff served for quite some time at All Experts re raw paleo diet. 

A lot of people aren't into forums even if they are raw paleo dieters.

Just so we understand where Geoff is coming from.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2011, 08:31:16 am »

A lot of people aren't into forums even if they are raw paleo dieters.


the whole context of that was me talking about people on this forum and what they either were or were not doing and if they were as healthy as HGs basically. Also on the majority how people here tend to limit fruit - even when they arn't 'zero carbers'. So obviously this would mean people are either misguided or that there is some kind of intelligence of experience guiding them to that decision. It happens to be both fact and experience based, so bringing in people that are not on record to speak for themselves or provide any sense or proof of their health is pretty much less reliable than citing HGs as having healthy diets to emulate.

Even when one can see RZC as a legitimate strategy, there seems to be a blind spot that people that are omnivores can have better results limiting fruit and eating other types of plant foods with more significant sources of nutrition and less detriments. Lets not forget that the Primal Diet is one such diet that is not 'RZC' but limits fruit and that there are plenty of 'paleo' diets that do such and give people better results than a variety of other diets some of them raw.

The other context was saying that only Aajonus was putting forth the idea that there was no such thing as infectious disease. Every concept I've ever been introduced to with raw foods on an individual level and on the internet the last 5-6 years has tended to state nutritional problems and cooking as the cause of many 'infectious disease'. GS I though to include you in my 'guru' grouping above. I personally remain skeptical in some respects, but this is not an idea that is absent in any way of raw eating that I have come across. To take a leap and say that the cooking that Native Americans were involved in was enough to make them even less healthy than people that heavily cooked their food and ate neolithic food is even more of a brainscratcher.

The other issue is that I've gotten into the same argument with is veganism and limited fruit diets. No quantity of RVAFers distorts this statistic. I can say that 5-6 years ago with absolute certainty there really was an extremely small presence of people promoting a high fruit diet, this is a fact in the raw world. Many years prior there was more with Ehret and other movements later  in the 60s that died off. Anyway, the amounts of RVAFers i'm quite positive was smaller than that of raw vegans even prior to the mid naughts, with a huge percentage - if not the bulk- at one point being on The Primal Diet given the statistics and #s there. Since then many people promoting diets high in fruit have either died or moved on the Primal Diet or perhaps raw zc or other diets or cooked. Some have improved their health somewhat sticking ot raw vegan diets of sprouts and other dense green foods thus displaying the problems are not unique to deficiencies as every such 'guru' will agree . This is just the reality of the percentages.

like I said tho..since most people are just on their personal experiment here and no one knows any of this stuff for sure, its much better to just respect that people have success with certain things - when they can actually back it up with evidence anyway - instead of just assuming things should fail or be worse based on hypothesis that DV wisely says are basically untested.

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2011, 11:13:03 am »
I like a lot of what Vitalis says, not very much what Wolfe says. It seems like Wolfe is prompting him on a lot of things too.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2011, 11:46:22 am »
The very lame argument you and others have used before is to state that modern cultivated raw fruits are nothing like raw, wild fruits, but not only does the exact same argument apply to raw domesticated animal foods as well as regards raw wild meats, ....
I haven't seen anyone in this forum make that point. I've only seen you misunderstand and then misrepresent on that. If you have a post where someone made that argument, then please provide it. In my case, for example, I try to eat as much of my meats in wild, old-breed, 100% grassfed, pastured, free-range, local small farm, etc. forms as I can afford. Same with the plants--I try to get wild, heirloom, 100% organic, etc. plant foods. It's not practical for me to get all my food in wild, Stone Age forms, so I make do. It's basically the old-world gourmet way of eating. I suspect that this is only a small factor in actual health anyway, but I do notice differences in taste and how I seem to feel after eating the higher quality versions of foods, plus I figure it's generally better not to mess with nature any more than one has to, because it has unknowable consequences.

As KD pointed out, DV actually acknowledged in that video (and in other videos) that the same argument applies to meats to a certain degree re: wildness as applies to plants and so he reports that he tries to eat as much wild, near-wild and 100% grassfed meats as he can, to come as close to a wild dietary model as is practical for him (if what he says is true, of course, and if you accept that he really believes that his colostrum and other junk is close to the quality of wild foods, which I'm skeptical of, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just misguided and not trying to mislead people, unless someone has evidence to the contrary). The two points are not mutually exclusive but in fact part of the same basic point that foods have been altered by humans in ways that we don't fully understand and can't possibly ever understand 100%. BTW, this is one reason why I don't buy the ZIOH argument that grainfed meat is just as good as 100% grassfed or wild, as we don't fully understand what changes we humans do to animals when we selectively breed them and feed them diets different from their natural diets. I find the most interesting part of DV's videos to be when he reveals the history of a plant or animal.

If you're going to make comments re: DV's videos, wouldn't it help if you watched them first?

the whole context of that was me talking about people on this forum and what they either were or were not doing and if they were as healthy as HGs basically. Also on the majority how people here tend to limit fruit - even when they arn't 'zero carbers'. ...
Interesting hypothesis. Does anyone here eat a high fruit diet, say more than 50% of your calories from fruits?

Just wish to clear this up, that Geoff / Tyler has been promoting raw paleo diet for a long time.  He started this forum.  And prior to this forum manages a thriving raw paleo diet at yahoo groups has a good number of members for many years before this forum even got started.  Plus Geoff served for quite some time at All Experts re raw paleo diet.  

A lot of people aren't into forums even if they are raw paleo dieters.

Just so we understand where Geoff is coming from.
And don't forget his participation at the Paleofood forum, GS. I wonder if Tyler lashes people there even more mercilessly than us, because they are mostly the dreaded cooked foodists? (shiver) :P
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 12:04:00 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline laterade

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2011, 01:41:11 pm »
I wonder if Tyler lashes people there even more mercilessly than us, because they are mostly the dreaded cooked foodists? (shiver) :P

We should raise funds by selling WWTDD wristbands. Durden, knower of all and corrector of opinions.
All in fun, Geoff!  :D

I like a lot of what Vitalis says, not very much what Wolfe says. It seems like Wolfe is prompting him on a lot of things too.

Durianrider actually put together a decent montage of DW blasphemies. I think it is titled "david wolfe on levitating mushrooms".

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2011, 02:27:52 pm »
I like a lot of what Vitalis says, not very much what Wolfe says. It seems like Wolfe is prompting him on a lot of things too.

I think they are good friends and I think david wolfe is open to the concept of meat eating now.
Maybe he is a covert RPD member here in this forum.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline laterade

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2011, 02:45:07 pm »
I think they are good friends and I think david wolfe is open to the concept of meat eating now.
Maybe he is a covert RPD member here in this forum.

Did you listen to the (not-so)Great Health Debate GS?
I think he said something like "meat needs to be cooked to take out the karma".
He once said that he eats ants, but I don't think he eats mammals.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2011, 02:48:19 pm »
I listened to david and daniel in a podcast together.

He was letting daniel explain his return to the wild.

That his cleansing, vegan time was what prepared him for healthy meat eating.

Couldn't catch those health debates.  been busy.

david and daniel seem to be warm buddies.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2011, 06:57:52 pm »
I haven't seen anyone in this forum make that point. I've only seen you misunderstand and then misrepresent on that. If you have a post where someone made that argument, then please provide it.
   That is disngenuous - not only are you such a regular member that you cannot have failed to have noticed various threads in the last year in which several people complained about the awfulness of domesticated fruits but never mentioned the raw wild game aspect until I raised the subject - but also, you are well aware that the search-engine of this site is so appalling that it would waste precious hours of my time to find it. Timewasting, unscrupulous nonsense, in other words. ;) l)

As for DV, I did watch one or two of his videos, but I do not have time to watch every single video of his I come across on this and other forums, and, anyway, DV activated my bullsh*t detector in various ways, so that I haven't bothered to look at them all.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2011, 07:11:19 pm »
the whole context of that was me talking about people on this forum and what they either were or were not doing and if they were as healthy as HGs basically. Also on the majority how people here tend to limit fruit - even when they arn't 'zero carbers'. So obviously this would mean people are either misguided or that there is some kind of intelligence of experience guiding them to that decision. It happens to be both fact and experience based, so bringing in people that are not on record to speak for themselves or provide any sense or proof of their health is pretty much less reliable than citing HGs as having healthy diets to emulate.

Even when one can see RZC as a legitimate strategy, there seems to be a blind spot that people that are omnivores can have better results limiting fruit and eating other types of plant foods with more significant sources of nutrition and less detriments. Lets not forget that the Primal Diet is one such diet that is not 'RZC' but limits fruit and that there are plenty of 'paleo' diets that do such and give people better results than a variety of other diets some of them raw.

The other context was saying that only Aajonus was putting forth the idea that there was no such thing as infectious disease. Every concept I've ever been introduced to with raw foods on an individual level and on the internet the last 5-6 years has tended to state nutritional problems and cooking as the cause of many 'infectious disease'. GS I though to include you in my 'guru' grouping above. I personally remain skeptical in some respects, but this is not an idea that is absent in any way of raw eating that I have come across. To take a leap and say that the cooking that Native Americans were involved in was enough to make them even less healthy than people that heavily cooked their food and ate neolithic food is even more of a brainscratcher.
  Well, it seems I have inadvertently answered a later question. Well, i'll do this one now and the earlier one afterwards.

First of all, your claim re people here limiting fruits is, of course, meaningless as this forum is merely a tiny sliver of the RVAF diet community online, and doesn't even cover the far greater number of RVAFers who don't even frequent online forums like this one.The rawpaleoforum, by its very nature/ideology, is, unlike the rest of the RVAF diet community, heavily biased towards eating raw and palaeo foods, whereas the rest of the RVAF diet community happily go in for raw fruits or raw dairy etc. It is therefore dishonest to cite it as a typical example. Also, like I said previously, there seem to be more raw omnivores than there are RVLCers or RZCers here combined. Of course, it all depends on what one's definition of "RVLC" is. I take it to mean carbs being  1-2 percent or less of a raw diet, though some others, bizarrely, suggest that "VLC" means carbs being less than 10-15 percent of a diet  with "LC" being defined as carbs forming only less than 40(!) percent of a particular diet.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #45 on: February 23, 2011, 08:09:00 pm »
As for the previous post, I've been surfing RVAF diet forums for 9-10 years now(and raw vegan ones before that) and one of the biggest  concerns mentioned in raw vegan circles was that raw vegan dieters routinely ate most of their intake in the form of raw fruits - not surprising, really, as raw veg is somewhat bland in taste.


The argument that raw-foodists couldn't survive in the wild is , of course, a meaningless argument as the exact same applies to cooked-palaeodieters given that a) the current environment, due to human destruction of it,  is rather devoid of easily obtainable sources of raw wild game, let alone raw wild fruits, so that people could not easily survive on a cooked-palaeodiet if shoved out into the modern New Forest, for example; and b) modern peoples, regardless of diet, do not have the survival skills that HGs had in palaeo times.


The claims re high-fruit-diets only appearing en masse in the last 5-6 years is false. Fruitarianism has been around for far, far  longer, as a diet, than any raw-meat-diet, more lika  century or so:-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism#Notable_adherents

And, like I said, many raw vegans have complained, in the past, that most raw vegans go in too much for raw fruits(it's a classic excuse to blame only a specific type of raw plant foods(raw fruits in this case) in order to obscure the fact that raw plant foods, as a whole, do not provide all the nutrients a human body needs over the span of many years).

Now, one can claim that interest in high-fruit-diets wax and wane all the time, but that happens to all other types of diets, even RVAF diets or cooked-paleodiets - after all, the sudden popularity of diets coincides with the latest book of a guru etc. I have heard that a book generates renewed interest in a particular type of diet for a span of c.7 years, no more.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #46 on: February 23, 2011, 09:32:50 pm »
Quote
Quote from: PaleoPhil on Yesterday at 10:46:22 PM
I haven't seen anyone in this forum make that point. I've only seen you misunderstand and then misrepresent on that. If you have a post where someone made that argument, then please provide it.

   That is disngenuous - not only are you such a regular member that you cannot have failed to have noticed various threads in the last year in which several people complained about the awfulness of domesticated fruits but never mentioned the raw wild game aspect until I raised the subject -
Not mentioning the wild game vs. grain fed domesticated animals aspect is not the same as believing that there is no difference. I never imagined that anyone here would think that because there are many posts from you, me and others about the benefits of wild and pasture-fed animals over feedlot cattle. I didn't think this was even much a matter of controversy here. I only see it as a controversy at ZIOH and semi-controversial at Dirty Carnivore (and even at DC the forum founder and others argue in favor of pasture fed animals).

Quote
but also, you are well aware that the search-engine of this site is so appalling that it would waste precious hours of my time to find it. Timewasting, unscrupulous nonsense, in other words. ;) l)
LOL Actually, I haven't had that much problems with it and there are two search engines if you don't like one.

Quote
As for DV, I did watch one or two of his videos, but I do not have time to watch every single video
I didn't say you did. I just suggested it might be helpful to you if you watched the ones you comment on.

Quote
of his I come across on this and other forums, and, anyway, DV activated my bullsh*t detector in various ways, so that I haven't bothered to look at them all.
To a certain degree he activated mine as well, given that he, like Mercola and others, has a vested interested in the products he sells. It doesn't prove anything, but it does raise my level of skepticism.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #47 on: February 23, 2011, 10:16:49 pm »
Well, there were threads on the perils of domesticated fruits in some forums, but deliberately without mention of the perils of domesticated meats, until I stepped in.


As for DV, I generally loathe gurus, as in all cases, I have found them, at least some(sometimes all) of the time to promote stuff that didn't ever work for me and many others. I realise people have to make money to live, but I prefer integrity over profit.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline cliff

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2011, 11:00:24 pm »
Domesticated animals aren't hybridized for certain macronutrients like fruit, they are hybridized for other reasons.  If they hybridized cows to have more fat or protien that would be similar to hybridized plant foods but they don't afaik.  The composition of domesticated fruits is radically different than wild fruit, the same can't be said for domesticated animals.

Check out how different wild fruits are compared to domesticated
                %water    %lipid %protein %sugar    %fiber
wild fruit           81.0      4.9          9.5       13.9     33.6
domestic fruit   84.8      2.5          5.5        34.0     10.0
domestic
vegetables        90.3      1.9          18.8        24.0    10.0

http://cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 01:12:09 am by TylerDurden »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: New Daniel Vitalis interview about raw food, evolution..
« Reply #49 on: February 23, 2011, 11:57:32 pm »
 Well, it seems I have inadvertently answered a later question. Well, i'll do this one now and the earlier one afterwards.

First of all, your claim re people here limiting fruits is, of course, meaningless as this forum is merely a tiny sliver of the RVAF diet community online, and doesn't even cover the far greater number of RVAFers who don't even frequent online forums like this one.The rawpaleoforum, by its very nature/ideology, is, unlike the rest of the RVAF diet community, heavily biased towards eating raw and palaeo foods, whereas the rest of the RVAF diet community happily go in for raw fruits or raw dairy etc. It is therefore dishonest to cite it as a typical example. Also, like I said previously, there seem to be more raw omnivores than there are RVLCers or RZCers here combined. Of course, it all depends on what one's definition of "RVLC" is. I take it to mean carbs being  1-2 percent or less of a raw diet, though some others, bizarrely, suggest that "VLC" means carbs being less than 10-15 percent of a diet  with "LC" being defined as carbs forming only less than 40(!) percent of a particular diet.


The whole point was to discuss why people on this forum do what they do and its similarities to DV philosophies, not other cooked foodists or other raw foodists that you are bringing in constantly to talk about again one persons philosophy that you arn't even looking at or has any correlations to such. I gave honest stats prior to 2005 of the raw vegan community that anyone can verify because you constantly downplay that most people that eat the majority of their foods as plants will cite specifically the problems associated with fruits as opposed to raw sprouts or even cooked starches. Its only recently in the last few years that there has been a resurgence against that often making the same claims that people are trying to sell products. but the concept is serious and has nothing to do with malnutrition of vegan diets generally but the fruit sugars interaction with internal problems and this is where the documentation is. Many leaders are forced to recommend steamed foods over raw foods despite them being raw leaders and thus seems ridiculous to many people because it sort of is. Anyone can verify this. The fact that peopel in 'RVAF' communities might eat some liberal amount of fruits by comparison to members here is not to say that they do not limit fruits to less than a significant portion of their calories.

To me if someone runs the math on this forum there are roughly 2-5 actually year round zero carbers with some of which eating some plant food. 2-5 instinctos with 2-3 of which actually claiming to limit fruits. Then there are a few full on omnivores that perhaps don't consciously limit anything. Virtually every other person will limit fruit in the sense where they bring some consciousness in terms of eating it or essentially eat next to no fruits. You mentioned that DV and Wangram are pulling form unknowns of HGs and you presented us with some unknown set of people that totally skirted the question anyway, which had to do specifically with people here and whether you actually thought that HGs had inferior health to people doing a contemporary raw paleo diet. It has nothing to do with cooking, but your comment that was rather outrageous if people are calling certain dedications to abstractions as health without any of the abilities or health of HGs to actually survive in nature. In skirting such, either you think that the vast majority of people are pursuing a unhealthful diet fueled by ignorance, or you are just bringing up other people for absolutely no reason. There is absolutely no way that I buy that there is any significant RVAF communities that are eating the bulk of their foods as fruits and dairy that are not eating some kind of Primal Diet or largely Weston Price diet influenced diet or a significant portion of calories from avocados, nuts and seeds, sprouts and/or cooked foods.


« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 12:26:19 am by KD »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk