Raw Eggs

[cherimoya_kid]

Dairy didn't cause any population explosions.  Grains did. There's no way Earth could support the current population on a raw paleo diet.  Technology may get us to that point, but it's not there yet.

[raw-al]

Dairy didn't cause any population explosions.  Grains did. There's no way Earth could support the current population on a raw paleo diet.  Technology may get us to that point, but it's not there yet.

I think you're right.

[Iguana]

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

You're welcome.

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

Thanks to you for this post, in which you originally stated something like:

Iguana,  thanks for your patience and time spent sharing your knowledge with us. 

Did you modify your post and why? I wanted to answer that the only thing I know is that I know almost nothing when taking into account the complexity of the living phenomenon and of the entire universe.

Raw Al, I understand that you don't believe in the evolution theory. That's your right and I had also great doubts about it before experiencing the instinctive raw paleo nutrition. But that diet takes its roots in the evolution theory, and the fact that we are better off with the nutrition of our ancestors of hundreds thousands or millions years ago seems to me be largely in favor of the evolution theory. It’s not a dogmatic one (“religious belief” as you state), but something provisional and in evolution itself, including different variants such as the theory of the punctuated equilibrium.

If the evolution theory is completely wrong, then the concept of raw paleo diet is plainly wrong too and we would not be able to live and thrive on exclusively on raw paleo foods.

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

Population explosion and individual health are not correlated in our case since the health troubles induced by Neolithic and cooked foods happen largely late in life, after the individuals have been able to reproduce. I think he emphasizes that fact.

Also, our notion of “good” and “evil (or bad)” are highly relative and dependant of the result we aim to. The population explosion can be seen either as a asset or as an evil according to the circumstances. Actually, it’s evidently a plague.

By the way, wouldn't the title "Raw eggs, raw milk, raw fish" be better suited to the whole thread?

[Iguana]

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.
 

I’ve no anti-dairy preconceptions, but  ok, there could be other explanations than this — which fits with the facts observed in Europe:

1. Milk is fundamentally different in America
2. You and some other Americans have a fundamental organic difference with Europeans
3. GCB and his old acquaintances whom I personally know are outright liars
4. Anything else
5. ??

[PaleoPhil]

5. not everyone's experiences match what GCB and you report and there is no dietary change from which everyone benefits equally, even generally positive changes, and what's beneficial for one person may even be harmful for another
6. GCB changed so many variables in his patients' diets and lifestyles, maybe something else other than dairy elimination was the key factor(s) in their health improvements
7. one study will find great benefits from an intervention and then another will find little or no benefit and the reason may never be figured out. That's one reason why the scientific method includes attempts to replicate study results by other parties (in this case, someone other than GCB). A hypothesis is generally not regarded as conclusive until a study can be replicated multiple times on sufficiently large study groups, which is expensive and is one reason why so many hypotheses remain inconclusive. Until then, we are left on our own to discover for ourselves what works for each of us.

GCB's own wife died of cancer, so it seems that he didn't get everything right, at least at first. I think he hypothesized that the error was too much beef muscle meat protein, and maybe dairy is something he also got wrong? He also reported observing "keratinizations" in multiple of his clients on his early recommended diet over the years, starting way back in 1964, yet he apparently stuck stubbornly to his recommended diet for years until his wife died of cancer and he could perhaps no longer ignore the problems? Is he (and all of us) not human and capable of mistakes and incorrect hypotheses? Perhaps this was a useful lesson; something good that came out of the tragedy of her cancer and death?

Cherimoya is right that the Earth cannot support the current population on a raw paleo diet, so shouldn't we be thankful that someone is willing to eat dairy foods?

[Iguana]

5. not everyone's experiences match what GCB and you report and there is no dietary change from which everyone benefits equally, even generally positive changes, and what's beneficial for one person may even be harmful for another

Sure. For example it is sometimes too late for some elderly people to adopt a raw paleo diet: swapping the diet which has been theirs during their whole life would be a too harsh change.
 

6. GCB changed so many variables in his patients' diets and lifestyles, maybe something else other than dairy elimination was the key factor(s) in their health improvements

That’s possible. But he’s a very meticulous observer and experimenter. He and his friend of the early days clearly state that they carefully isolated the variables and suppressed milk of their diet several months (a few years perhaps) after going 100% raw, only after they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food. Therefore I would be extremely surprised if they made such a big mistake.

7. one study will find great benefits from an intervention and then another will find little or no benefit and the reason may never be figured out

It depends, amongst plenty other factors, how long in time the apparent effects of a diet are observed.  Once again, ourselves don't pretend that an instincto diet brings any benefit, but we view instead the standard cooked diet as dangerous . 

GCB's own wife died of cancer, so it seems that he didn't get everything right, at least at first. I think he hypothesized that the error was too much beef muscle meat protein, and maybe dairy is something he also got wrong? He also reported observing "keratinizations" in multiple of his clients on his early recommended diet over the years, starting way back in 1964, yet he apparently stuck stubbornly to his recommended diet for years until his wife died of cancer and he could perhaps no longer ignore the problems? Is he not human and capable of mistakes and incorrect hypotheses?

Of course he’s still not always right and I tend to disagree with him on some points. But I couldn’t find any fundamental flaw in his theories.

He warned Nicole that she ate too much beef muscle meat, but she didn’t believe him. In the end and against his advices, she relied on Hamer’s method, (which is somewhat a scam).  In Switzerland, none of us believed GCB either when he wrote a text ascribing her dead to an excessive meat consumption.

Cherimoya is right that the Earth cannot support the current population on a raw paleo diet, so shouldn't we be thankful that someone is willing to eat dairy foods?

I agree with the first statement but disagree with the second since cattle farming in his current and common form is one of the greatest cause of environmental disasters on the planet!

Cheers
François

[PaleoPhil]

You shared some important words. Firstly, "they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food." So dairy was not the only possible culprit, it sounds like it was pasteurized, and many people have reported that wheat can damage the gut lining, enabling milk proteins to cross into the bloodstream, and that after wheat is eliminated and the gut is healed, the dairy proteins no longer cross the barrier and people start to find certain forms of dairy to be beneficial. It can reportedly sometimes take years of healing, though.

Secondly, "cattle farming in (its) current and common form." Changing the current form seems to be something that everyone agrees on. You're not against raw meat consumption, so the cattle will be raised, so utilizing their milk would provide more total food than not utilizing it. You wouldn't have to consume dairy and you would still benefit if other people consumed dairy instead of more of the meat, driving up meat demand and eventually prices. For example, when butter became much more popular in Sweden due to a high fat, low carb trend, the price of butter rose dramatically. If it had been a high protein, moderate fat trend, then the price of muscle meat would likely have risen greatly.

GCB's wife was not the only Instincto he reported witnessing health problems in. As I mentioned, he also reported observing keratinizations in his clients/followers over the years, starting back in 1964, which he attributed to "excessive consumption of protein" from "raw meat, especially beef, pork, mutton and game." Where did his clients get the idea to eat so much of these raw, mostly red, meats? It certainly didn't come from conventional wisdom, which argues against eating too much red meat and against eating any raw meats. Did he include a warning about this in his early writings after he started observing this in 1964?

[Iguana]

You shared some important words. Firstly, "they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food." So dairy was not the only possible culprit, it sounds like it was pasteurized,

Of course not, it was from an organic farmer they new well and the cows were exclusively grass fed. Then, suspecting that their troubles when drinking milk were because that farmer did nevertheless something wrong, they bought their own goat to insure the quality of the milk they consumed. 

and many people have reported that wheat can damage the gut lining, enabling milk proteins to cross into the bloodstream, and that after wheat is eliminated and the gut is healed, the dairy proteins no longer cross the barrier and people start to find certain forms of dairy to be beneficial. It can reportedly sometimes take years of healing, though.

It all depends on what was the initial diet and health condition of the person. 

Secondly, "cattle farming in (its) current and common form." Changing the current form seems to be something that everyone agrees on. You're not against raw meat consumption, so the cattle will be raised, so utilizing their milk would provide more total food than not utilizing it. You wouldn't have to consume dairy and you would still benefit if other people consumed dairy instead of more of the meat, driving up meat demand and eventually prices. For example, when butter became much more popular in Sweden due to a high fat, low carb trend, the price of butter rose dramatically. If it had been a high protein, moderate fat trend, then the price of muscle meat would likely have risen greatly.

Yeah, what would be the world’s conditions if most people were eating that way or this other way…We can dream of a better world!  Anyway, our small number of paleo rawists is a drop of water in an ocean of 7 billions people eating cooked food. 

GCB's wife was not the only Instincto he reported witnessing health problems in. As I mentioned, he also reported observing keratinizations in his clients/followers over the years, starting back in 1964, which he attributed to "excessive consumption of protein" from "raw meat, especially beef, pork, mutton and game. "

It was much latter than 1964: that’s the year it all started with his idea to eat raw food according to our instinct. They were vegetarians at the time and they consumed dairy. It had not yet come to their mind that we can eat meat and fish raw.

Where did his clients get the idea to eat so much of these raw, mostly red, meats?
It certainly didn't come from conventional wisdom, which argues against eating too much red meat and against eating any raw meats.

Yes, that idea came from him. The idea was to consume it freely, as much and as often as our instinct leads us.

The theory is neat, but the way to practice in our modern world where a lot of foods and the conditions are different than hundred thousands years ago is something else, something which has been a matter of  experimentations (trials and errors), discussions and arguments.

Did he include a warning about this in his early writings after he started observing this in 1964?

When he observed that, it must have been in the 80s. I followed his seminars between 1987 and 1990 and at the time he advised us not to regularly eat mammals’ meat everyday, but to alternate with fish, shellfish, eggs and poultry, so that red meat would be consumed in average about once a week. 

[PaleoPhil]

Why did you say "of course not"? What would be so surprising about consuming pasteurized dairy given that you said they were eating wheat and cooked foods?

How did they fare on the goat milk? I vaguely recall you saying in the past that they did better, but then found that they improved even more by eliminating all dairy.

Anyway, our small number of paleo rawists is a drop of water in an ocean of 7 billions people eating cooked food.

Yes, one good thing about there being so few raw Paleoists and Paleoists in general is that we haven't yet caused any major food price spikes, AFAIK. It would be nice if it would become socially acceptable without many of our choice foods becoming much more expensive. That may be too much to wish for. In some ways I'm grateful for the vegans, vegetarians and high-dairy consumers who don't eat much of our favorite animal/sea foods, as it makes our WOE more likely to remain doable in the coming years (and a return to older and better farming techniques would also help, as you and Tyler have pointed out), though I don't care for their attempts to ridicule and ostracize us.

They were vegetarians at the time and they consumed dairy.

Fascinating. Did I ask you yet if GCB or other early Instincto people were influenced at all by the vegetarian lebensreform folks, like Arnold Ahret, Nietzsche,  Sebastian Kneipp, Louis Kuhne, Rudolf Steiner, Karl Wilhelm Diefenbach, Fidus (Hugo Höppener), Gusto Graeser, Adolf Just, the naturmensch philosophy, Wandervogel, or similar influences?

Yes, that idea came from him. The idea was to consume it freely, as much and as often as our instinct leads us.

OK, so since he got that wrong (according to GCB himself), then maybe he's getting it wrong on raw dairy now--do you see what I mean? Maybe there are some forms of dairy that are OK for some people, the way the Masai and Dinka can consume fermented milk despite not having developed lactase persistance (IIRC).

BTW, I wonder if the tradition of at times mixing of blood into the milk, especially for ceremonies, among the Masai, Celts and other pastoral peoples, was one way of dealing with the excess calcium issue, as the iron in blood binds with the calcium--what do you think?

The tradition of heavy tea drinking among pastoral peoples like Celts, Turkics, Mongols and Tibetans (reportedly, Tibetans traditionally drank at times as much as 30 cups of butter tea a day!) also may have helped deal with the calcium:

"The oxalate intake from the regular daily consumption of black teas is modest when compared to the amounts of soluble oxalate that can be found in common foods. However, oxalate in black teas has the potential to bind to a significant proportion of calcium in the milk, which is commonly consumed with the black teas."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495262

So, yes, there are probably risks with high amounts of dairy consumption, but pastoral peoples may have worked out ways for dealing with these risks, and modest consumption is probably less of a risk. This may help explain why these traditional peoples across the globe don't display high rates of the negative health effects that GCB reported from dairy, and why folks who are unaware of these traditional practices may develop problems and then attribute them to all dairy, instead of modern ways of consuming dairy that don't take into account traditional practices.

When he observed that, it must have been in the 80s. I followed his seminars between 1987 and 1990 and at the time he advised us not to regularly eat mammals’ meat everyday, but to alternate with fish, shellfish, eggs and poultry, so that red meat would be consumed in average about once a week.

Yet he hasn't yet warned about it in his published works, right? Maybe he has witnessed other things that he has yet to publish that are different from what he wrote in his published works up to this point? Given that he changed his mind about muscle meats, maybe some day he'll say that this or that form of dairy is OK for some people?

[van]

Iguana,  you've seen my posts relating to the ability of one to build large colonies of lactose digesting bacteria, and my suspect that not all species making up colonies are ideal for the human gut (since it is their waste products that get reabsorbed and utilized by us).  For instance I found some forms of bacteria simply too acid forming.   The other thing I believe that happened for me in my 13 year experiment with raw grass fed nubian goat milk, is that in the first years, my body (as described by GCB used those raw molecules to exchange for the damaged ones my body had collected from drinking years and years of pasturized grain fed cow milk as a kid growing up (like everyone else in this country did).  And the cleansing that came from that was potentially as powerful as what happened when I started eating raw tuna  several times a week, after eating years and years worth of canned tuna...     Bottom line here::  how do you know that GCB and his friend didn't experience the same sort of molecular exchange, and, knew what they were doing, by implanting the 'proper' beneficial bacteria to their intestines.  I went so far as getting human specific bacteria, the strains usually found just after birth and innocculated  whey and did implants many times.  And made yogurts (raw) with the same species, and made raw kefirs with several different kefir varieties collected from different countries around the world.  All of which provided different effects on the way my body utilized the milk from my grass fed goats.    What I'm trying to convey is there are lots of variables.   And,  I too don't think milk is ideal for My body after all that,, and my goats are living out their lives on fifty acres of meadows right now. 

[Iguana]

 

Why did you say "of course not"? What would be so surprising about consuming pasteurized dairy given that you said they were eating wheat and cooked foods?

Did I say that?? Before 1964 or 65, yes they ate cooked food, but we are speaking of their raw period which started around these years.

How did they fare on the goat milk? I vaguely recall you saying in the past that they did better, but then found that they improved even more by eliminating all dairy.

No I didn’t say that either. AFAIK they didn’t notice any difference.

Fascinating. Did I ask you yet if GCB or other early Instincto people were influenced at all by the vegetarian lebensreform folks, like Arnold Ahret, Nietzsche,  Sebastian Kneipp, Louis Kuhne, Rudolf Steiner, Karl Wilhelm Diefenbach, Fidus (Hugo Höppener), Gusto Graeser, Adolf Just, the naturmensch philosophy, Wandervogel, or similar influences?

He states somewhere in his book that, yes, they were influenced by the vegetarian ideology. Even now, there are people who practice a kind of vegetarian instincto nutrition, especially in Germany I think.

OK, so since he got that wrong (according to GCB himself), then maybe he's getting it wrong on raw dairy now--do you see what I mean?

Sure, he could be wrong on everything, like everyone.

Maybe there are some forms of dairy that are OK for some people, the way the Masai and Dinka can consume fermented milk despite not having developed lactase persistance (IIRC).

Maybe.

BTW, I wonder if the tradition of at times mixing of blood into the milk, especially for ceremonies, among the Masai, Celts and other pastoral peoples, was one way of dealing with the excess calcium issue, as the iron in blood binds with the calcium--what do you think?

I have no idea.

The tradition of heavy tea drinking among pastoral peoples like Celts, Turkics, Mongols and Tibetans (reportedly, Tibetans traditionally drank at times as much as 30 cups of butter tea a day!) also may have helped deal with the calcium:

"The oxalate intake from the regular daily consumption of black teas is modest when compared to the amounts of soluble oxalate that can be found in common foods. However, oxalate in black teas has the potential to bind to a significant proportion of calcium in the milk, which is commonly consumed with the black teas."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495262

So, yes, there are probably risks with high amounts of dairy consumption, but pastoral peoples may have worked out ways for dealing with these risks, and modest consumption is probably less of a risk. This may help explain why these traditional peoples across the globe don't display high rates of the negative health effects that GCB reported from dairy, and why folks who are unaware of these traditional practices may develop problems and then attribute them to all dairy, instead of modern ways of consuming dairy that don't take into account traditional practices.

Interesting. Also these people have an active live in open air, a lot of physical activities, are less intoxinated than us by modern junk food  and have been subject to a quite active natural selection until very recently if not until now. What can we infer of all this? Maybe that they would have died of malnutrition or starvation without dairy, or on the contrary that their health would be even better without dairy;

Yet he hasn't yet warned about it in his published works, right?

His book is not intended as a guide to the practice of instincto-nutrition but only meant to describe the theory. There’s even at the end a warning not to launch oneself into the practice without an adequate training and tutoring. He nevertheless states somewhere in it that meat should be included in the practice, but also that it should not be consumed in excess. I already copied and pasted that page somewhere in a discussion with KD and others.

There was a monthly publication in French called “Instincto Magazine” (formerly “Orkoscopie”) where this topic (and plenty others) was discussed in length by him and various authors.

Maybe he has witnessed other things that he has yet to publish that are different from what he wrote in his published works up to this point? Given that he changed his mind about muscle meats, maybe some day he'll say that this or that form of dairy is OK for some people?

Maybe some day, LOL!  Actually it’s a fact that some ethnic groups living in hostile environment depend on dairy to survive and I don’t think he disputes that.

He launched his own forum here, if you are interested in his latest thoughts and if you can understand French:
 http://instinctotherapie.ning.com/

[Iguana]

Bottom line here::  how do you know that GCB and his friend didn't experience the same sort of molecular exchange, and, knew what they were doing, by implanting the 'proper' beneficial bacteria to their intestines.

I don’t know, Van.

[PaleoPhil]

Did I say that?? Before 1964 or 65, yes they ate cooked food, but we are speaking of their raw period which started around these years.

I was responding to this text of yours about their cooked food period:
 

after going 100% raw, only after they had identified dairy as one of the main cause of troubles, along with wheat and cooked food

It sounds like you thought I was talking about their raw period. Hope this clears it up.
 
I can believe that vegetarianism still runs strong in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, because it was strong there going back to at least the 19th century (and people from the lebensreform and other early European movements later reportedly influenced the vegetarian, hippie, nature boy and other movements in the USA).

He nevertheless states somewhere in it that meat should be included in the practice, but also that it should not be consumed in excess. I already copied and pasted that page somewhere in a discussion with KD and others.

OK, any idea why some of the people he monitored and observed ignored his advice and ate too much muscle meat anyway, and why their alliesthetic sense didn't give them stop signals? I imagine KD probably asked about that, so hope you don't mind answering again.

[Iguana]

OK, any idea why some of the people he monitored and observed ignored his advice and ate too much muscle meat anyway, and why their alliesthetic sense didn't give them stop signals? I imagine KD probably asked about that, so hope you don't mind answering again.

They didn’t believe him, I told you that we in Switzerland didn’t believe either that raw meat can trigger a cancer and we've proceeded as before. Many — if not most — “instinctos” disagree with GCB about his “metapsychoanalysis” and are more or less irritated by his strong personality.

The alliestesic sense doesn’t provide a clear “stop” signal with meat of domestic animals (beef, porc, mutton), like every product having been selected by hundreds generations of our ancestors precisely in intend to get it remaining as tasty as possible whatever the amount eaten,  so we tend to eat to much of it.

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks, GCB is actually in step with some conventional scientists and Paleoists re: protein, as cancer cells feed off of amino acids and carbs, whereas they can't use fats. So eating plenty of fat and limiting protein and carbs to certain levels makes some sense in light of this.

For myself, I actually find wild meats to taste better than domesticated, though I can't rule out that the stop signal might be messed up by grain-fed meats or something.

[Iguana]

I must add that it was difficult to believe because some cancers had spontaneously and spectacularly self-healed while the person had been eating large amounts of raw meat everyday during some months.

GCB explained in an article that both facts were compatible, raw meat being necessary in large amounts during a certain period  for a body to heal, while in "cruise conditions" it would be dangerous to continuously ingest daily such quantities during a long period. But this apparent contradiction was perhaps over the faculty of understanding of most people…

BTW, most long term instinctos also find wild meats tastier. These have a strong taste while I find that of beef bland, especially when fresh. Seems like the stronger taste of wild meats also provides a clearer stop signal.


 

[RogueFarmer]

Dairy didn't cause any population explosions.  Grains did. There's no way Earth could support the current population on a raw paleo diet.  Technology may get us to that point, but it's not there yet.

I seem to be unable to get through to you people. This is just not true. There is enough lawn grown in the US to grow enough cows to feed every American nothing but beef.

The technology is here, the resources are here. All it will take is a cultural shift.

See my post "the proverbial revolution is at hand".

[Iguana]

Yes, Rogue Farmer, I keep your post about Allan Savory http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/the-aforementioned-%27revolution%27-is-at-hand/msg109223/#msg109223 and what he explains in mind, that's why I wrote 'in its current and common form" :

I agree with the first statement but disagree with the second since cattle farming in his current and common form is one of the greatest cause of environmental disasters on the planet!

What I fear is that it will take a long time till he's widely known, understood and till cattle farming is done almost everywhere as he suggests. Humans have a strong tendency to stick stubbornly to stupid, inefficient and obsolete ways.    And meanwhile the population is still exploding. Another point is that we need other foods than beef also : seafood, wild animals meat, fruits as wild as possible, etc.

[RogueFarmer]

The way cattle are farmed in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, New Zealand and Brazil are vastly superior to American methods albeit still largely imperfect especially in NZ and Brazil where it often means rainforest destruction.

[cherimoya_kid]

I seem to be unable to get through to you people. This is just not true. There is enough lawn grown in the US to grow enough cows to feed every American nothing but beef.

The technology is here, the resources are here. All it will take is a cultural shift.

See my post "the proverbial revolution is at hand".

We could maybe feed Americans a paleo diet that way (although I don't think people would easily accept having their lawns turned into grazing land), but not every human.

[goodsamaritan]

Ho ho ho... I bought an OSTRICH EGG!

P 800 for the egg $ 17 USD

The seller told me to use a DRILL to drill a hole at one end... then use a barbecue stick to help stir and let the contents flow into a bowl.  Careful not to crack the shell for posterity.

I will be arranging a family meal with this egg, of course I will eat my fill of it raw and tell you how it tasted.

[TylerDurden]

I once bought and ate a raw ostrich egg from the first Wholefoods chain-store in the UK, and it was a disappointment. Sure, ostriches  are raised all over the world nowadays but if the ostriches are fed on junk food(ie grains), then, inevitably, their eggs and meat will taste very bland. Strangely, though, when I ate some wild boar meat that came from a UK farm(and was therefore fed almost wholly on grains), the meat tasted OK(though nowhere near as good as the raw wild boar meat I get in Austria, of course..

[raw-al]

GS,
I hope it tastes better than the duck eggs we got awhile ago. They were so rich they were almost inedible. We bought a dozen and could not eat them all.

Much prefer the chicken eggs we get from our own.