Raw Eggs

[Iguana]

I don't think you can easily dismiss WP, however I am not suggesting people follow him. His observations were pretty clear and follow the same vein as other places in the world. I've been to places inside the Arctic Circle and seen the destruction of the native populations by us Honkies.

I’m not dismissing Weston Price, it’s just that his conclusions must be relativized because he studied people eating cooked food. Of course, wherever these people still had a traditional diet without white sugar, without white flour and without other refined modern industrial foods, they had a better health, with normal, strong bones, jaws and dentition – the features he  mostly studied as a dentist.   

The way I see it, anybody in those communities who had problems with dairy etc simply died and so were out of the gene pool. Same is true with the Inuit etc. If you were unable to live on seal blubber you died.

There has certainly been a partial natural selection, that’s why Nordic people seem to be less un-adapted to dairy than Africans and south-east Asians. But it’s very far from sure that this  adaptation is adequate for most and you can’t know if yourself are personally sufficiently adapted, the absence of short term reaction being no proof, even more so if you didn’t get out of tolerance - the time to get there being highly variable and undefined. I guess it would take one or two years to be somewhat sure about it. 

Truth is none of us truly eat like the true RPDieters of yore, because as you show in your picture, we don't eat anything that our paleo ancestors ate.... Tuna is a deep sea fish, so it is no more paleo than milk.....

That’s a point we’ve been wondering ourselves. The experience doesn’t show any problem with tuna and other deep sea fish species, contrary to what has been experienced with dairy. So why? Tyler provided an answer, which may either be valid or may not be. Anyhow, fish consumption (various fish species as a class of food) is certainly much more ancient than animal milk consumption. Several species of mammals can catch fish and humans could certainly have somehow access to fish before developing harpoons and hooks, about 2 or 3 hundred thousand years ago. Sure, regular  meat and shellfish consumption happened even long before regular fish consumption, but raw fish have always provided clear instinctive stop signals, whatever the species.

You eat a raw diet, not a raw paleo diet.

That comment applies to you, not to me, thanks. As I told you, you are attempting to redefine what “paleo diet” means: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Centered on commonly available modern foods, the contemporary "Paleolithic diet" consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[1][3][4]

http://thepaleodiet.com/what-to-eat-on-the-paleo-diet/
The Paleo Diet | Dr. Loren Cordain, Founder of the Paleo Diet ...The Paleo Diet, the healthiest diet that mimics the diets of our caveman ancestors, includes meats, seafood, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. | Dr. Loren Cordain

[Iguana]

How bears get fish nowadays  (short video)

http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/15/easier-than-fishing/#more-126222

[goodsamaritan]

Reports from Spanish explorers in the early 16th century who arrived in the Philippines noted that sea food (near the shores... no need to venture out far), lake food, and river food... all aquatic animals / fish / sea weed were extremely abundant... super duper extremely abundant.

As well as forest game and forest fruit were extremely abundant... wild pigs couldn't run because they were too darn fat from too much forest fruit and other edible vegetation.

Raw wild honey was extremely abundant.

(Philippine recorded history only began with those Spaniards... we were mostly tribal except for the ancient city / town of Manila).

[raw-al]

Thanks to finally be someone who ask it, because I was rather sure none here understand what I mean!

Well, it’s not at all what you talk about, which is a completely opposite thing. What I talk about is the immune system tolerance (dysfunction) induced by a constant and repetitive exposure to something noxious. For example, by regularly smoking or drinking booze, people become able to do it without any apparent negative effect because their body finally stopped to try to expel a  poison to which it is constantly exposed, their immune system being overwhelmed and thus stopping to operate against that particular nuisance. A slow, gradual poisoning takes place then and the final result shows up several years or decades latter. 

The same happen with cooked food and dairy. As long as you regularly consume it, no detoxination happen.

Here is what I hear you saying saying Iguana: if you cannot win an argument on facts, go for the "you'll be sorry someday!!" argument. That's the same argument the veges use on meat eaters and the cooked food crowd uses on raw food eaters. It's hollow.

You can do better than that.

Every alcoholic I know is easy to pick out. They usually stink and their noses are immune to it. Typically they have a host of different physical manifestations of their slow poisoning. It does not take a genius to see the damage. After a particularly wild night they cannot be trusted the next day to do anything sensible despite being quite confidant of the opposite. I read somewhere that Mario Andretti stated that he would not have any alcohol for 6 days before a race. Yes some are able to hide it better, but they cannot hide it. One drunk I knew actually functioned quite well but he shook like a leaf all the time. I remember one dolt that I knew who took out a camera (the morning after) to take a picture of some things for his job. He pointed the camera toward his eye and just about blew his eyes out when the flash went off in his eye. Even light to moderate drinkers typically get every cold/flu/illness going around and have a regular spot in the line at the Doctor's office.

[raw-al]

How bears get fish nowadays  (short video)

http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/15/easier-than-fishing/#more-126222

LOL

[Iguana]

Al, I'm not trying to win this argument. I'm just trying to explain what I understand and tell what my friends who founded the raw paleo -instincto movement almost 50 years ago in Switzerland - as well as prof Jean Seignalet in Montpellier - found out after long, methodical experiences and experiments with various animals, themselves, their children and thousands of volunteers, decades before Cordain and Eaton.

Go on consuming dairy if you are so sure it's ok and if your feet never stink cheese, I don't care. Perhaps milk is better in America...

[PaleoPhil]

It sounds like you're talking about an elimination test, Iguana. I agree that it makes sense to do an elimination trial, rather than just assume that one tolerates dairy. The standard food elimination trial advice that my naturopathic physician and most others give is to eliminate a suspect food(s) for 3 weeks or so and then try a re-introduction challenge, as it supposedly takes about 3 weeks for most or all of the toxins from a food sensitivity to leave the body. I err on the cautious side and suggest a month or more. 2 years is way longer than I've ever heard of. If it takes that long for any benefits to appear, then the toxicity is negligible and it would be impossible to tell if any re-introduction symptoms were related or just random noise. If you think that dairy is so minimally toxic that it takes 2+ years for benefits to show, then what's all the fuss about?

If I argued that fruits are no good for humans because I and a bunch of others I know don't tolerate them well, that our ancestors didn't eat them as a staple, and that no one can know whether they tolerate fruits or not unless they avoid them for 2 years, would you test that, or would you dismiss it as ridiculously extreme?

I avoided dairy for more than 4 years before re-introducing it. I only noticed benefit (mainly dental) by re-introducing pastured butter. I don't experience any problems from moderate amounts of raw sheep cheeses. Some other dairy foods do give me some negative effects. Eliminating dairy years ago didn't produce nearly the benefits for me that eliminating gluten, processed sugary foods, and most legumes, and lowering my carb intake did. Not all the reports from GCB, you and other Instincto-type dieters match my own experience. Take it for what you will and to each their own.

I'll avoid the cooked food discussion, as that could go off on a tangent and anyone who's here, other than trolls, presumably already accepts that raw foods provide at least significant benefits.

Here's the stated forum policy on inclusion of controversial foods:

Welcome New Members! Please Read.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/welcoming-commitee/welcome-new-members!-please-read/
"A 100% RPD is certainly not required, as we are all on our own path to health." - Waungata

[Iguana]

Sorry Phil : no, you don’t understand me. It’s like you are still reasoning in terms of Aristotle physics while we are in Newton or in Einstein physics. Is the fundamental revolution brought by GCB so difficult to grasp?

He explains what he means by “tolerance” or “intolerance” towards the end of this document http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat4.html (type “tolerance” in the “search” case to get directly to the paragraphs).

I’m not sure how to interpret the discrepancies between your own experience and the instincto experiences. Probably that such an exit of tolerance happens for sure only when someone has eaten 100% raw paleo long enough with a satisfactory instinctive regulation.

Of course, I agree with Waungata’s statement that  "a 100% RPD is certainly not required” to participate in this forum. People eating cooked food and dairy are welcome, but active promotion of typical Neolithic foods on this Paleo Forum should not remain unanswered. A forum is meant for discussion, so everything is open to questioning.

[TylerDurden]

I seem to recall that I suggested "Waungata's" statement there, originally.It was  only really  to encourage more people on the fringes to join us, and increase membership. I didn't want to be too ideological, as well. On the other hand, rawpaleoforum was also mainly meant as a refuge from other forums which were too dominated by pro-raw dairy/pro-cooked-food-advocates, so I am far more in sympathy with Iguana on this issue.My idea is that raw dairy-related topics should be freely discussed without criticism on the weston-price and primal diet forums. On other forums, such as this one, however, I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone like Iguana to criticise raw dairy.

[PaleoPhil]

Iguana, Sorry I tried to understand GCB's theory on tolerance and as usual I find his writing difficult to grasp. I understand you better than he, especially when you speak your own thoughts, but when you try to explain GCB's theories you tend to lose me. I guess I don't have the brain power to comprehend his grand theories. As I've said before, I'm a simple man. Would you please bring the Einsteinian physics down to a level an unschooled Bushman would understand?

Probably that such an exit of tolerance happens for sure only when someone has eaten 100% raw paleo long enough with a satisfactory instinctive regulation.

That assumption rather conveniently fits your anti-dairy view.

everything is open to questioning

I agree with you on this. That has been one of my fundamental views for many years.

Tyler, as I mentioned, the fact that this forum was welcoming of people like me (at the time) who don't eat dairy is one reason I was attracted to it, along with the fact that it was more tolerant of raw and had way more info on it than the one other forum that's very friendly to nondairy Paleoists but unfortunately tends to ridicule rawists, and the fact that Lex Rooker was an active member (and he eschews dairy, BTW).

I too think it's OK to criticize raw dairy, as I still do myself at times--such as when some folks try to make it out to be a guaranteed miracle cure for everything for everyone--I just don't have a problem with people reporting positive results from raw dairy or other aspects of it in this forum and I don't understand why Iguana is up in arms. If it works for them, then it works, regardless of what the official Paleo ideology is. I put more weight on what actually works for each individual than ivory tower theories.

If Paleo means that one shouldn't eat dairy even if it provides benefits, then Paleo is nonsensical. To me, that's not what true Paleo is about.

[van]

I'm not taking sides here,  But,  there is short term health benefits, and long term.  I think we need to keep that in mind.  We're almost all suspect of having found and extolling our new fountain of youth.  I keep falling into that hole.  Because someone may put on weight or have increased energy does not necessarily mean that food will serve them well for years to come.   I discovered that with some of the healthiest goat milk on the planet over some 15 years....   So it really may come down to individual experiences.      But I will say it again,, the most important aspect of being able to use milk as a food is the gut flora.  In the case of the Swiss in various studies, to have known the makeup of their flora would have been most telling.  A gut flora which most likely evolved over countless generations; complex as the rest of the human being.  So to try to thrive on dairy can be quite hit or miss.  When you look at the specific strains of bacteria and yeast in a kefir grain,  the numbers can approach 100 different strains,, all working in harmony.   It is suggested that we can all repopulate our colons with lactose digesting bacteria, it just takes time, but there won't be any guarantee that which ones we are exposed to are the ones most beneficial for our own anatomy.    The Masai's gut flora makeup as compared to the Swiss gut flora makeup.  Remember there are more bacterial cells in your colon than the rest of the cells in the entire body. 

[PaleoPhil]

I'm not taking sides here,  But,  there is short term health benefits, and long term.  I think we need to keep that in mind.

Of course. I'm on you're side with that. 

We're almost all suspect of having found and extolling our new fountain of youth.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing from avidly pro-dairy folks that turned me off in the past. Unfortunately, I think I over-reacted a bit and was a bit too harsh on dairy in the past.

But I will say it again,, the most important aspect of being able to use milk as a food is the gut flora.

I think you're right. That fits with the experience of African pastoralists who were observed to show no symptoms of lactose intolerance despite not having developed the genetic adaptation of lactase persistence. Interestingly, they typically fermented their milk, if I recall correctly, and it was of course raw. I don't recall if it was the Masai who were studied or someone else.

It seems that bacteria do much of the digesting of dairy, so that genetic adaptation may be partially or wholly unnecessary, and some novel foods also may require less genetic or epigenetic adaptation to begin with. After all, milk is a natural food, rather than a procreative device that requires defending, such as with seeds.

[Iguana]

Iguana, Sorry I tried to understand GCB's theory on tolerance and as usual I find his writing difficult to grasp. I understand you better than he, especially when you speak your own thoughts, but when you try to explain GCB's theories you tend to lose me. I guess I don't have the brain power to comprehend his grand theories. As I've said before, I'm a simple man. Would you please bring the Einsteinian physics down to a level an unschooled Bushman would understand?

Sorry, I thought I should have added that it took myself 3 successive reading of the original version of his book (the version translated in English which is freely available on line may not be perfectly accurate) plus weekend courses with him and a whole week of discussion in a in-depth seminar to get my mind clear of previous misconceptions we’ve all been taught since childhood. Without even realizing that, we automatically think along the pre-set schemes which plagues the whole current medical and dietary ways of thinking.

I’m under the impression that you’re more clever than I, so I took for granted that you would grab it easily and faster than me.   

For example, he doesn’t pretend that an instinctive raw paleo nutrition brings any health benefits: on the contrary it’s the Neolithic and modern cooked food which is a potential cause of troubles. Eating raw paleo is just and only the normal way, the way that has always been that of all animals and hominids during hundreds millions years. So, we don’t pretend to be able to cure anything. It’s the body which self-heal once the cause of its illness has been removed. (The French judicial system tried to convict him for illegal practice of medicine, but failed. So they had to find another way to arrest him.)

Another example is the ridiculous way conventional medicine is seeing common bacteria and virus as our enemies, a view which has been completely reversed in GCB’s theoretical model. It implies that contagion of bacterial and viral diseases should be beneficial. If these diseases become dangerous and sometimes deadly it’s due to the continuous intake of cooked food and cereal grains (and dairy, LOL!  ) which contains precisely the abnormal molecules theses diseases are meant to expel.

When we speak about “tolerance”, you have in mind the approach which is taught by scholars still embedded in the current conventional medical and dietary views while GCB is talking about something else. (That’s what I’m under the impression, sorry if I’m wrong). You know too much, much more than me, but you still integrate (or are trying to do so) your knowledge in the conventional theoretical model which has been wrecked by GCB. It prevents you to properly understand him. Get rid of all you think you know, and start building a new theoretical model from scratch (or adopt a more “facts fitting one” already devised by someone else… ) . It’s one of the main pillars of the scientific method: the methodical doubt of philosopher René Descartes — and that’s how GCB proceeded.

If Paleo means that one shouldn't eat dairy even if it provides benefits, then Paleo is nonsensical. To me, that's not what true Paleo is about.

Of course, dairy can be beneficial in some cases. Bread too! It may be better to eat raw dairy than no animal food at all (at least for some people and in some cases) and it is certainly better to eat bread and cheese than let us die from starvation if no other food is available.

But as Van pointed out, there are short term and long term results which may be completely opposite. A clear example is medical drugs. So it’s extremely difficult to draw any conclusion from short term results, even more so in a single individual case. It’s somehow like  playing Russian roulette: dairy may be ok or even beneficial for you, even in the long term if you’re lucky enough. But only if you’re lucky enough!

After all, milk is a natural food, rather than a procreative device that requires defending, such as with seeds.

Milk is natural for the babies who suck it. They don’t commonly suck the milk from a female of another species, even if it may occasionally happen — similarly  as animal may occasionally have access to food grilled in a wildfire or on volcanic lava.

[cherimoya_kid]

Iguana, you have not made your case for a better definition of "tolerance".

The only drawback I can see to longterm use of raw dairy (in people who do not have any obvious intolerance to it) is its unbalanced calcium/magnesium ratio.  Many studies have linked calcium to heart disease, and magnesium to preventing heart disease. I personally only eat cream, which is much lower in minerals and higher in fat, calories, and fat-soluble vitamins. This way I get the fat and fat-soluble vitamins, without nearly as much of the excess calcium.

You're right that luck does play a role, in that sense.  If you have no genetic tendency to heart disease, then you are much less likely to suffer from heart disease, whether or not you consume raw dairy.  The opposite is true if you have a strong genetic tendency to heart disease...and raw dairy will definitely increase the risk of heart disease if you already have a genetic tendency to it (In my opinion, anyway).

I don't see any other hidden, slow-building problems with grassfed raw dairy.  Heart disease is the only one I can point to.

[TylerDurden]

Lactose leads to copper deficiency:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2g.shtml

Other problems with dairy  are its hormone-content which is very disruptive. So it's not just the casein- and lactose-intolerance which makes raw dairy harmful. Oh, yes, and wai genriuu also stated that the excess calcium in dairy might be helpful for bones in the short-term, but highly destructive in the long-term:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

[jessica]

copper deficiency would be a good thing in my case, I cant even touch copper without feeling like shit, I have had large copper ring around my neck give me a seizure(yes my friends are assholes!)

[cherimoya_kid]

Lactose leads to copper deficiency:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2g.shtml

Other problems with dairy  are its hormone-content which is very disruptive. So it's not just the casein- and lactose-intolerance which makes raw dairy harmful. Oh, yes, and wai genriuu also stated that the excess calcium in dairy might be helpful for bones in the short-term, but highly destructive in the long-term:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

Copper deficiency is going to show up in a few months or a couple of years.  That's a short-term problem, in my view, and fairly easily-reversed.  And, if the diet is nutritious enough, it's not a problem.

The hormone thing is pretty suspect, to me.  I'm sure it applies in some people, but plenty of traditional tribes consume grassfed dairy without widespread reports of weird hormone problems. 

I think there might be something to the bone thing. However, my point about consuming only cream/butter applies in this case.

[van]

Iguana,  thanks for your patience and time spent sharing what you practice. 

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, and thanks also to Raw-Al and Cherimoya for their patience and time spent sharing here what they practice.

Thanks for explaining your views, Iguana. To me it seems more that your writing is clearer and more practical than GCB's, rather than that misconceptions somehow reduce the comprehensibility of his writing. You seem to have greater facility with English, which I appreciate, as I think it has helped me understand various Instincto concepts.

As I stated above, I avoided all dairy for years, and I recommended to my close friends and relatives that they avoid it, and I had to be persuaded by a growing accumulation of evidence to a less critical view, including the positive experiences reported in this and other forums and other evidence. So they have been enlightening for me. I try to be open-minded and I welcome such enlightenment. Given all this, attributing what I've recently written to previous misconceptions taught since childhood, or to automatically thinking along pre-set conventional schemes, would make no sense in my case and I doubt that it's the case for Cherimoya and all others who consume dairy. Can you really know what's in other people's heads? If not, then isn't there a risk of wishful thinking when assumptions are made about why other people think what they do? To be useful, don't dietary forums need to be on guard for confirmation bias as well as trolls?

Early in this dairy discussion you supplied your definition of "Paleo" as not including dairy because it's "recent on the evolution timescale" and then wondered "why so many posters relentlessly keep on touting milk and dairy here". Perhaps it seems that way in part because not everyone shares your definition of "Paleo" in every detail and maybe the positive reports and comments are because people are honestly sharing their experiences?

No one has tried to silence criticism of dairy. Do you want people to withhold their dairy experiences and comments if they don't fit with your definition of Paleo? Should we hold dogmatically to past definitions even if new accumulating information contradicts them? Are you aware that there is a lot of disagreement in the broader Paleo community about what Paleo really is or should be and that it's far from a settled question?

The point-counterpoint arguments re: dairy will likely never be entirely resolved. I don't find GCB or Wai's opinions persuasive that all should avoid dairy, sorry, and I've seen all of them (or variants of them) before from other critics of dairy, and I've made many of the same anti-dairy points myself in the past, including the tolerance point (and I still recommend that people with health or stubborn overweight issues try a dairy elimination for a month or so--especially the carb and protein fractions--to see if reveals anything). I agree that there are questions and potential problems regarding various forms of dairy for many people, including myself, I'm just not troubled by Raw-Al's or Cherimoya's posts on it, which was why I chimed in.

If there was a particular post that provides a good example of what troubles you, perhaps you could share it? I can empathize with you. The sort of thing from the pro-dairy crowd that gets my goat is when someone says something like "raw milk is the perfect food" and makes no allowance for variances among individuals. I haven't noticed that sort of thing lately, but maybe I missed it?

Tyler, thanks for that link indicating that lactose may reduce copper levels. Quite interesting. So you think that some info from www.beyondveg.com is legit on at least some things, like this? I may investigate this further.

copper deficiency would be a good thing in my case

Yeah, I was unaware of the copper-reducing effect of lactose, which would also be beneficial for me.

[Iguana]

Ok, Phil. Yes, I appreciate your open mind.

Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet. I had to rethink about it and try to get it straight in my mind before explaining it properly, which I failed to do (because I was eager to go to the beach!), as pointed out by Cherimoya Kid.

The assumption is that by eating cooked food or an excessive amount of any specific foodstuff, the body gets polluted by abnormal molecules and foreign proteins. Before becoming a part of us, ingested foreign proteins must be cut into amino acid which are subsequently re-formed in suitable human proteins, as well explained by Seignalet   under his point 3 here http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html :

  3. Protein metabolism. To keep this foreword reasonably short, only protein-based non-initial molecules will here be described as against sugar- or fat-based NIMs.Man's bodily tissues mainly consist of proteins that are amino acid chains. Renewing man's protein pool requires h4im to metabolise vegetable and animal dietary protein. It is therefore crucial for dietary proteins to be properly broken down into their constituent amino acids. Should some amino acids retain peptide structures of varying lengths, they may not be suitable for human protein synthesis. By way of illustration, imagine human proteins consist of English words, animal proteins of French words, and vegetable proteins of Russian words. If separate letters were taken from say, French or Russian words, it will still be possible to produce English words. However, should some sequences remain clustered, the fragments yielded will fail to be part of an English word. Thus, the French combination "qui" or the Russian "vitch" form no part of any English word.

If you’re interested, you can read the complete explanation of Seignalet, which is quite technical. (select the text, copy and paste it on Word or whatever to get rid of the mess on the webpage) but certainly more accurate than my approximate attempt.

To make it short, cancerous cells continuously appear in our bodies. These are earmarked by what I think is called in English “antigen presentation”, so that the immune system can identify them and destroy them. Now, when the body is polluted by foreign proteins which trigger the cells  having included them to show a specific type of “antigene presentation” on their membrane, the immune system is thought to finally go “on strike” (tolerance),  failling to destroy those cells anymore as it would involve destruction of a large proportion of the body.

If, by an unfortunate coincidence, a cancerous cell happen to have precisely the same “antigene presentation” than the one the immune system is on strike against (tolerant), then it won’t be destroyed and will be able to freely proliferate.

That’s why GCB thinks an excessive consumption of proteins is dangerous, especially if those proteins have a shape only slightly different of human proteins, so that the immune system could too easily fail to recognize them as foreign. It appeared that meat of domestic mammals can easily be consumed in excess, leading to some foreign proteins having not been broken into amino acids by our enzymes to pass through the bowel lining.  That’s what would have led to the cancer of Nicole, according to GCB. This problem is much more acute with dairy products to which our adaptation is unlikely to be complete and our instinctive stop signals extremely weak.

Seignalet :

In all such diseases, ailing health is caused by an immune reaction to an antigen's having inveigled into the body. Now, pure fats are not immunogenic. As for pure sugars (polyosides), there are only immunogenic with a molecular weight above 100,000, and, additionally, T lymphocytes are not involved in immune response to those polyosides (2). Hence, there is grounds for thinking that the antigenic culprit is a peptide.

Would it mean that cream and  butter would not trigger the same problem? I don’t know, I’m incompetent to tell.

[Iguana]

Reports from Spanish explorers in the early 16th century who arrived in the Philippines noted that sea food (near the shores... no need to venture out far), lake food, and river food... all aquatic animals / fish / sea weed were extremely abundant... super duper extremely abundant.

As well as forest game and forest fruit were extremely abundant... wild pigs couldn't run because they were too darn fat from too much forest fruit and other edible vegetation.

Raw wild honey was extremely abundant.

(Philippine recorded history only began with those Spaniards... we were mostly tribal except for the ancient city / town of Manila).

Very interesting, thanks. Was milk extremely abundant too?   

[goodsamaritan]

In the report i read there was no mention of milk.

The only indigenous possible milk giver is the water buffalo locally known as carabao / calabao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabao

....

Always a pleasure reading opinions and arguments here.  Thanks everyone.

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for the positive vibes, GS. And thanks to Raw-Al and Cheri for the appreciative posts earlier. I try not to let notions of popularity influence my opinions, but I'm thankful for the positive feedback.

Iguana, I agree that an excessive consumption of proteins is probably dangerous, and among the Americans, Paul Jaminet and Dr. Ron Rosedale have written rather brilliantly on this. Cheri is correct that this would not be a problem if cream (preferably raw, cultured, and pastured) and butter (ditto) were emphasized, rather than such modern horrors as low-fat pasteurized 100% grain/molasses/candy/chicken-turd/garbage-fed milk.

Here are some old breeds of domesticated milk-producing animals that would probably produce healthier dairy products than the most commonly used animals and breeds today:

Camels:


Yaks:


Karakul sheep:


Galway sheep:


Nubian goats:


Kerry cattle:


Dinka cattle:


Zulu Nguni cattle:


Mongolian horse:

[cherimoya_kid]

That's interesting, Iguana.  I didn't know about that theory of cancer and protein.

[raw-al]

Ok, Phil. Yes, I appreciate your open mind.

Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet. I had to rethink about it and try to get it straight in my mind before explaining it properly, which I failed to do (because I was eager to go to the beach!), as pointed out by Cherimoya Kid.

The assumption is that by eating cooked food or an excessive amount of any specific foodstuff, the body gets polluted by abnormal molecules and foreign proteins. Before becoming a part of us, ingested foreign proteins must be cut into amino acid which are subsequently re-formed in suitable human proteins, as well explained by Seignalet   under his point 3 here http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html :
If you’re interested, you can read the complete explanation of Seignalet, which is quite technical. (select the text, copy and paste it on Word or whatever to get rid of the mess on the webpage) but certainly more accurate than my approximate tentative.

To make it short, cancerous cells continuously appear in our bodies. These are earmarked by what I think is called in English “antigen presentation”, so that the immune system can identify them and destroy them. Now, when the body is polluted by foreign proteins which trigger the cells  having included them to show a specific type of “antigene presentation” on their membrane, the immune system is thought to finally go “on strike” (tolerance),  failling to destroy those cells anymore as it would involve destruction of a large proportion of the body.

My difficulty with this article also extends to most "scientificism" discussions.

The authors start off with assumptions that are based on the predjudice they started off with. Here is an example:

"1. Man's genetic adaptation to his natural environment. This tenet is in keeping with Darwin's theories published in 1859 and which remain valid despite their having been partly altered or improved on by other scientists. Species are descended from one another, evolution being due to genetic alterations (mutations, deletions, insertions, replication, genetic and chromosomic reshuffling) best suited for such changes being the ones selected - individuals fittest for survival in given surroundings superseding the lesser endowed. Both man's forebears and primeval man lived like animals and were subject to that law. Thorough-going natural selection over an extended timespan turned out beings well suited to their background and especially to their diet. "

This assumes that Darwin's theory or "Natural Selectionism" as a number of contrary-minded authors call it, is accurate. There are a number of well know objections to this modern religion, ie. large populations were decimated by starvation, which has nothing to do with cancer, or adaptation, or genes or DNA or enzymes or what can get through the intestinal tract. If there is no food such as when the sabre-toothed tigers were wiped out in North America, then there is no food. People cannot eat rocks and dirt and survive  for a sensible period of time.

Cancer is a relatively modern disease in as far as it being a popular way to kick the bucket. My favourite version of the reason for the popularity of cancer is the one in "Dirty Electricity" by Epidemiologist Dr Samuel Milham A Brief Introduction to 'Dirty Electricity' - Dr. Sam Milham

That has squat to do with what we eat.

Ayurveda says that food that does not digest properly tends to get stuck in the GI Tract, sort of like glue. Then it eventually makes it's way through the osmotic barrier depending on the health of the tract (which is to a large degree based on it's lubricity, [is that a word LOL]...  surprise, surprise fat [which dairy has in spades] is necessary for health because it provides the lubrication). Once it makes it's way into the blood it's anybody's guess as to where it ends up and what organs etc are damaged. Fat in the diet afaiac is primarily to lubricate the tract so that food can move along it, and the walls and thus the osmotic barrier is kept supple and strong, thus preventing undigested foods breaking through into the blood.

Before anyone gets excited obviously dairy is not the only source of fat.

Personally and this is my opinion, (not my religion like Darwinism is to Richard Dawkins) that humans have only devolved. There's a heap of wild and crazy guesses amoungst anthropologists etc that defy explanation and are typically left out when making broad brush descriptions of the "Descent of Man".

AFAIAC The only reason we live longer nowadays is that we have such an abundance of food and comforts that allow us to look out our windows at major weather upheavals and allow us to live in places that would have been impossible in the past when a minor weather issue could wipe out a bunch of us from starvation.

Regarding enzymes, they are not a static thing that we have all our lives. They diminish in quantity and quality as we age and may indeed be the reason that we age as a lot of people have concluded today. I personally think the reason we need additional enzymes particularly as we age is related to not eating raw foods.

Here is another statement that he makes which proves his predisposition to say what he believes and paint it up in a "Scientificism" article.

"Consequently, man has altogether strayed from his natural condition, considering that no wild animal feeds on the milk of another species,"

He clearly states that populations that consumed dairy expanded greatly and indeed may have wiped out the hunter-gatherers. this would lead one to believe the opposite of his assumption, in other words dairy must be good because it brought about a population explosion. By extension, his logic would have had us all kickin' the bucket from Cancer.....

However I return to what I said all along, which is that milk is like every food, in that it is apropos for some and not for others and as far as percentages, who gives a hoot! If it's good/bad for you, it's good/bad for you. Eating any food constantly without a break, I don't care whether it is raw or not is a bad idea. I can only stand a certain number of days with anything.