Too Many Pronouncements, Too Little Thought and Effort

[TylerDurden]

We already have scientists taking us seriously, given the vast multitude of studies on the heat-created toxins in cooked foods and the rising popularity of the hygiene hypothesis.

As for people getting sick on this board, I would say that c. 90 percent of those are orthorexic hypochondriacs with mythical illnesses, given my experiences with such people in the past and on other forums - there are always tell-tale signs. But those orthorexics exist on all diet forums, not just rawpalaeo.

I do concede that our illnesses, derived from modern living, are so bad that some people here will genuinely suffer far more from eating raw carbs than from eating cooked animal foods, for example; but that does not per se make cooked foods healthy. It just means that they got an increased sensitivity to all carbs as a result of past eating of refined carbs over decades.

[Iguana]

  The simple fact is that cooking cannot provide all the benefits that raw foods can. Naturally, some forms of cooked diets are "less worse" than others, and can even provide some health benefits, in some cases, but that's all.

Shouldn’t we formulate this the other way around? For example:

Raw food does not provide any benefits: it has just been the normal food of all living things on Earth ever since the apparition of life, about 4 billions years ago. On the other hand, cooking generates such an enormous assortment of complex and potentially noxious new chemical species that it will never be possible to apprehend the global interactions of any significant number of these molecules with animals and humans metabolism. Cooking plays havoc in the living matter (increases entropy) and is doubtlessly the main culprit for most human and domestic animals diseases.

Nevertheless, cooked food can prevent death from starvation or illness from malnutrition in case no or not enough suitable raw food is available.

i also would like to mention there are too many long essays.  i personally don't read them.

Very true, I don't read them neither!   

[Dorothy]

We already have scientists taking us seriously, given the vast multitude of studies on the heat-created toxins in cooked foods and the rising popularity of the hygiene hypothesis.

As for people getting sick on this board, I would say that c. 90 percent of those are orthorexic hypochondriacs with mythical illnesses, given my experiences with such people in the past and on other forums - there are always tell-tale signs. But those orthorexics exist on all diet forums, not just rawpalaeo.

I do concede that our illnesses, derived from modern living, are so bad that some people here will genuinely suffer far more from eating raw carbs than from eating cooked animal foods, for example; but that does not per se make cooked foods healthy. It just means that they got an increased sensitivity to all carbs as a result of past eating of refined carbs over decades.

It is good that scientists are seeing that the studies SUGGEST that further investigation is warranted. Let's not scare them away by sounding like fundamentalist believers and dismiss every account of differing results - categorizing them all as orthorexic - as we ALL could easily be classified so easily as such.

At present - there are NO double-blind peer-reviewed studies proving your statement I quoted above. Only studies that imply that perhaps a raw paleo diet could be worth further study.

[Dorothy]

Hey Mentor Iguana - were my posts above too long too? Did you read those?
If I'm too long I will try even harder to edit.

I did respond to KD kinda long - but didn't think I could make my point to him with less words. I could cut those shorter too ....... or at least I can try. 

[TylerDurden]

It is good that scientists are seeing that the studies SUGGEST that further investigation is warranted. Let's not scare them away by sounding like fundamentalist believers and dismiss every account of differing results - categorizing them all as orthorexic - as we ALL could easily be classified so easily as such.

At present - there are NO double-blind peer-reviewed studies proving your statement I quoted above. Only studies that imply that perhaps a raw paleo diet could be worth further study.

  B*ll*cks.  The fact that we have many thousands of studies damning cooked foods and their negative health effects, along with many studies damning non-palaeo foods, means that rawpalaeo diets have a lot of science backing them.

[Iguana]

Hey Mentor Iguana - were my posts above too long too? Did you read those?
If I'm too long I will try even harder to edit.

I did respond to KD kinda long - but didn't think I could make my point to him with less words. I could cut those shorter too ....... or at least I can try. 

I try to read them, but I'm not sure I did read them all in totality, dear Dorothy!

[Dorothy]

  B*ll*cks.  The fact that we have many thousands of studies damning cooked foods and their negative health effects, along with many studies damning non-palaeo foods, means that rawpalaeo diets have a lot of science backing them.

I think you just swore at me in British!

Just because something is suggestive does not make it proof. You can say that there is proof that there are toxins present in cooked foods and in many non-paleo foods - but whether that translates into eating an all raw paleo diet is simply not proven - there are just too many unknown variables.

Say that it has been proven that a raw paleo diet is the best diet for everyone everywhere to a scientist because of the studies you have collected and I highly doubt that they won't laugh out loud Tyler.

What I have been saying is so completely obvious to me that it is hard to believe that such an intelligent person as yourself is swearing at me over it. I guess if you are not open and there is no talking to you on the subject I should just bow out and put this into the part of my brain reserved for illogical things that aren't worth discussing because it will go nowhere.

[Dorothy]

I try to read them, but I'm not sure I did read them all in totality, dear Dorothy!

Darn - and I thought I was doing so well! Can I ask you please to help me out Iguana and point out in the future when I fail. My fingers go so very fast. I would very much appreciate it.

[PaleoPhil]

i also would like to mention there are too many long essays.  i personally don't read them.

Looks like you solved your own problem. Those who aren't interested can just move on. That's the beauty of freedom of choice--everybody wins. Go team, hooray for us! 

I think you just swore at me in British!

LOL. That's a classic Dorothy quote. I love how your uplifting personality comes through even in the limiting medium of text.

You usually have so much interesting and thoughtful stuff in your posts, Dorothy, that I don't mind that they tend to be long. Besides, I could hardly complain given my whoppers. LOL I think fast typing speed is part of my downfall too. I need to remind myself that just because I can type out a boatload of text in a jiffy doesn't mean I should.

[TylerDurden]

First of all, "convincing" scientists is not our main aim here. After all, scientists are usually in the pay of companies, and it simply isn't in the interests of the big food corporations/supermarkets etc. to encourage the sale of raw animal foods, as those foods have a short shelf-life by comparison to heavily-processed ready meals which can last for months/years.

As for our members, you will find that many of us have already tried virtually every single other diet out there before going in for RVAF diets/rawpalaeodiets - I'm a typical example thereof(about the only diets I didn't do were the macrobiotic diet and breatharianism). This is not surprising as there is a big phobia in society about raw animal foods, so that the only diet viewed with greater disdain than RVAF diets is the breatharian diet, so RVAF diets are usually started only when other dietary possibilites have been excluded. What this means, is that trying to convince us of the supposed "merits" of other diets, particularly cooked diets, when we've largely already tried them with no, or very few, benefits gained therefrom, is a bit pointless.


I am, of course, not suggesting that other diets are always useless. I happen to be aware of some evidence indicating that cooked-palaeodiets can reduce symptoms of diabetes and a few other conditions, for example. But for people who are in real trouble, a rawpalaeodiet will usually be more effective. After all, there are obvious benefits:-

1) Reduction in the amounts of heat-created toxins, as many studies show, leads to a reduction in many age-related (and other)conditions such as arthritis, heart-disease etc.

2) A rawpalaeodiet provides high quality foods in the form of wild foods and grassfed meats etc. So it has higher nutrient levels.

3) There are no grains, dairy or legumes in a rawpalaeodiet. Many modern diseases are directly linked to consumption of those 3 foods. So a rawpalaeodiet avoids that trap.

4)  A rawpalaeodiet has bacteria which helps populate the gut more effectively, thus easing digestion etc.

[Iguana]

Looks like you solved your own problem. Those who aren't interested can just move on. That's the beauty of freedom of choice--everybody wins. Go team, hooray for us! 

You usually have so much interesting and thoughtful stuff in your posts, Dorothy, that I don't mind that they tend to be long. Besides, I could hardly complain given my whoppers. LOL I think fast typing speed is part of my downfall too. I need to remind myself that just because I can type out a boatload of text in a jiffy doesn't mean I should.

Yes Phil. The point is that it would be nice to be able to follow the whole discussion with a clear understanding of what everyone means without spending a considerable amount of time reading uselessly long and tortuous posts such as KD’s. It’s a pity, because I’m sure he has some valuable and useful ideas.

Otherwise it tends to become a dialogue of the deaf where everyone takes much more pleasure in writing than in reading and understanding what the others mean.

Please don’t forget that the time many of us spend on this forum is depriving us of the opportunity to do other important things. Thus expressing our ideas in a clear and concise way is of the utmost importance.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes and I apologize again for my lengthy posts, Iguana. I'm hoping that the other requests will also be given consideration.

[Dorothy]

First of all, "convincing" scientists is not our main aim here. After all, scientists are usually in the pay of companies, and it simply isn't in the interests of the big food corporations/supermarkets etc. to encourage the sale of raw animal foods, as those foods have a short shelf-life by comparison to heavily-processed ready meals which can last for months/years.

As for our members, you will find that many of us have already tried virtually every single other diet out there before going in for RVAF diets/rawpalaeodiets - I'm a typical example thereof(about the only diets I didn't do were the macrobiotic diet and breatharianism). This is not surprising as there is a big phobia in society about raw animal foods, so that the only diet viewed with greater disdain than RVAF diets is the breatharian diet, so RVAF diets are usually started only when other dietary possibilites have been excluded. What this means, is that trying to convince us of the supposed "merits" of other diets, particularly cooked diets, when we've largely already tried them with no, or very few, benefits gained therefrom, is a bit pointless.


I am, of course, not suggesting that other diets are always useless. I happen to be aware of some evidence indicating that cooked-palaeodiets can reduce symptoms of diabetes and a few other conditions, for example. But for people who are in real trouble, a rawpalaeodiet will usually be more effective. After all, there are obvious benefits:-

1) Reduction in the amounts of heat-created toxins, as many studies show, leads to a reduction in many age-related (and other)conditions such as arthritis, heart-disease etc.

2) A rawpalaeodiet provides high quality foods in the form of wild foods and grassfed meats etc. So it has higher nutrient levels.

3) There are no grains, dairy or legumes in a rawpalaeodiet. Many modern diseases are directly linked to consumption of those 3 foods. So a rawpalaeodiet avoids that trap.

4)  A rawpalaeodiet has bacteria which helps populate the gut more effectively, thus easing digestion etc.

Wow, did you ever get on a soapbox to divert from that issue! "Convincing scientists is not our main aim here" yet you want to use scientific data to validate your arguments. You only want to respect science when it serves your purpose.

Again - it's not that I don't agree with you about raw paleo foods - I do - I am of the same opinion considering logically my own experience, other people's experiences and the studies that we do have and what they might imply. I just think that making global and extreme statements makes your (and my) case weaker.

Anywhosywhatsitz --- it was a nice debate while it lasted. Into the illogical brain box it goes.

Cheerio!

[TylerDurden]

There is a big difference between "convincing scientists" and relying on scientific data! After all, many, many scientists are crooks in the pay of some sort of organisation which funds their research, whereas scientific data can sometimes prove the exaxt opposite of what the scientists are trying to prove.

[Dorothy]

There is a big difference between "convincing scientists" and relying on scientific data! After all, many, many scientists are crooks in the pay of some sort of organisation which funds their research, whereas scientific data can sometimes prove the exaxt opposite of what the scientists are trying to prove.

I'm assuming that the scientists that did the experiments that you cite aren't crooks? Is it really inconceivable that there might be good and honorable scientists that might want to research this diet in the future? I never implied that any of us are interested in "convincing" anyone - let alone crooks. You cite science and yet make extreme extrapolations that are not scientific. Maybe, just maybe, if we are lucky, this diet might be taken seriously enough by some University professor to conduct a small study one day - or some person with more money than they know what to do with.

But the real issue is that I like things that make sense and are logical and it seems to me that there are a good many people here that do too - which makes me happy and gives me hope. 

Are we calmly debating on topic again? I'd like that.

[Dorothy]

And to the kind, sweet PaleoPhil .I say ....... 

[TylerDurden]

*sigh* - it's "cite" not "site". I have corrected your error, as of now, through editing. As for my "extrapolations", I am "merely" referring to thousands upon thousands of studies done on heat-created toxins. So my stance is a hell of a lot more "logical" than yours!

[Dorothy]

*sigh* - it's "cite" not "site". I have corrected your error, as of now, through editing. As for my "extrapolations", I am "merely" referring to thousands upon thousands of studies done on heat-created toxins. So my stance is a hell of a lot more "logical" than yours!

There you go swearing at me again and trying to insult me by pointing out a spelling error.... and I do know that cite is spelled that way btw - just a mistake. Thanks for fixing it for me. I'll watch my fingers more closely when it comes to that word in the future. 

Thousands upon thousands of experiments on something that are NOT on what you are trying to prove can only be suggestive that other studies could be of interest - they are not proof.

Again give any scientist all your studies and tell them that it proves that a raw paleo diet is therefore best for every person everywhere living in all different environments and circumstances, in different health and countless other variables - especially when raw paleo can include someone eating mostly fruit or mostly animal fat and a great variety of foods and they will dismiss you outright and won't take anything you have to say with seriousness.

How can regular thinking people take such a claim seriously? When you claim more than you can support it can call into question all your claims - which would be a shame.

Although I believe a raw paleo diet to be the best for me, think that that it is SUGGESTED by studies, and it is my opinion that it is likely to be beneficial in general for at least most people, I disagree with any statements that claim that it is scientifically proven to be the best for everyone or similar. 

Going back and forth any more with Tyler probably isn't going to go anywhere but........

Does anyone else get my point?  Is there something I am not understanding or seeing  that others see?

[Iguana]

Does anyone else get my point?

Yes, I do.

[HIT_it_RAW]

Does anyone else get my point?  Is there something I am not understanding or seeing  that others see?

Although, like Tyler, I'm convinced rpd is the best diet I do get your point. You are absolutely right that double blind research is required in the future.

However the sheer multitude of scientific studies pointing out problems with heat created toxins does make rpd a rather safe bet I think. Certainly defendable just not garanteeable(if that's a word ).

[TylerDurden]

"Pedantic", to put it mildly.....

[HIT_it_RAW]

or essential

[KD]

it doesn't matter if RPD is the best diet. The issue is which aspects of health are important: abstaining from cooked toxins OR constructing a healthy diet. One theoretically should be able to do both or say both is best but this will always be an assumption and that is why we are all here. If this wasn't true we would all be blissfully healthier than the rest of the human race to bother.  It is possible to do the latter (to some degree) without the former being in focus and vs versa and this has been shown in ancient and modern history with diet experimentation. IMO People can't commit to that as being so mutable because that is how they are identifying their health success over others without really being honest about it. Just curing a few symptoms or avoiding toxins does not equate to health OR make someone healthier than people who live their lives in health focusing on the things that are important  in health and in life. 

Even ignoring that people have to often do things that others in other states do not, the abstract examples, even as being 'more safe' (never superior) or whatever do not hold true. Shouldn't need a study to accept an otherwise identical diet with the same person, one with meat and 1000 cals of oranges and another with meat and 1000 cals of sourdough bread is NOT automatically going to sway in one direction as far as health. We don't know 100% why this is and obviously real life examples are more complex than that and even worse, so don't bother nitpicking. Health isn't created when one stops taking in toxins but when eats and lives in a healthful way in addition to specific steps to reverse their own personal maze of health. This never lines up with just avoiding crap except that just happens be a huge tool to get healthier. The former has already failed as an experiment and most people don't realize why it isn't even worth entertaining as an idea. This is despite the fact that its almost universally fails to 'beat out' people living healthfully on varying amounts of 'bad stuff'.

hope that is short enough.

[PaleoPhil]

You only want to respect science when it serves your purpose.

Hee, hee. You got his number right quick. 

I'm assuming that the scientists that did the experiments that you cite aren't crooks?

Bingo! How did you guess?

There you go swearing at me again and trying to insult me by pointing out a spelling error....

Just for your info--Tyler's not picking on you with that, he corrects lots of people's spelling errors.

Does anyone else get my point?  Is there something I am not understanding or seeing  that others see?

Sure, but the problem is you're using logic. Tsk, tsk.

I believe a raw paleo diet to be the best for me, think that that it is SUGGESTED by studies, and it is my opinion that it is likely to be beneficial in general for at least most people

Not good enough. Get on your knees and worship the raw Paleo god and curse all the crooked scientists that don't think 100% raw is best and who are always wrong  ...  except when they agree with us. 

[PaleoPhil]

KD, the message I'm receiving from you is that health and well being are more important than fealty to raw purity. Am I reading you correctly?