so few people.

[Carne Cruda]

Guilty as charged.

Honestly, though:
1) it's not like I have significative health problems.
2) plus, I made the transition to RAF in slightly over 3 years (LC, Paleo-LC, ZC with steak tartare and rare cooked meats, RAF).
So I don't  really have many questions left.

Both the arguments (protein denaturation, lipid oxidation, AGEs, HACs, ROSs, HAMs, enzymes destruction, vitamins reduction, and so on)  and my personal body reactions, convinced to switch from cooked VLC-ZC (again, with a lot of rare cooked stuff and some raw) to RAF.

I only started at the end of August - beginning of September, so it's probably savvy if I use these four months (till 1 January 2014) as a test period. And who would take advice from someone who has been on a diet for, like, only 3 weeks, anyway?
But even after that, I can't promise I'll post as much as I once thought I would:
apart from english not being my first language, the fact is that on RAF I find that there isn't really that much to debate, to tweak. Especially compared to other diets.

[Haai]

I cant eat avocado at all. Does that mean avocado is bad? No it means that I have a rare mutation.

Humans have not been exposed to avocados for very long. They originate from Central America, and spread around the world only several hundred years ago. Perhaps this explains why some people have problems with them.

[goodsamaritan]

I'm allergic to tomatoes.
Tried 2 tomatoes every morning with salt and pepper to kill tape worms for 2 weeks.
After 1 week I thought I was going to die ahead of the tape worms.

[van]

The above claims re detox are nonsense. A genuine detox is of a short, temporary nature, usually lasting days, never more than a few weeks. Granted, one can develop more immunity over a long period of time as one`s body grows stronger due to rising health(I think allergies increase in severity  if one is ill), but that has nothing to do with detox.

   Tyler I disagree.  In my experience there are several factors that allow someone to do well ( at least for some time ) with milk.   First is that most of us have grown up drinking pasteurized milk.  That's a lot of stored damaged proteins (not to mention a host of other rubbish) in the body.   Switching over to raw gives the body a chance to exchange for the damaged molecules.   That exchange can last months (in my experience) as the body cleans out. 
   The second factor is that when we're off milk for some years (assuming we drank it when young) we loose the intestinal bacteria that can digest lactose, and other compounds in milk.  We still have some, but the population numbers are low.  Thus when beginning dairy, it is extremely helpful to start with very very small amounts, increasing slowly as the numbers of lactose feeding bacteria grow in numbers.  Or one can do an implant with the same bacteria.  It is my understanding that they are produced in the large intestine and then transported to the liver  where they are dispersed.  I have only read this,  and so it is just passed information.   That is why milk can seem like poison to some, and not to others. 
   To me, the question really is how does the body adapt long term.  For most who can digest milk immediately feel like they have discovered the fountain of youth, with all the immediate sugar (lactose) proteins and fats; a complete food.  They put on weight,  start cleansing years of stored wastes... it feels again, like a real boon, and they want to tell everyone.  I know,  I preached the same sermon for years.  I have no idea as to how Aajonus faired on it in his later years, but what can happen so often with diet gurus is that they proclaim something to be true for so long, and then should they find (if they are willing to admit) that they were mistaken, it can be most difficult to reverse their opinions.  Just look at the leading proponent of the 80/20 diet; he's dug in.   Very few want to die, and hence when we think we have found that fountain,,  we don't like to give it up.

[Haai]

I'm allergic to tomatoes.
Tried 2 tomatoes every morning with salt and pepper to kill tape worms for 2 weeks.
After 1 week I thought I was going to die ahead of the tape worms.

Tomatoes, besides being a nightshade, are also from the New World.

[Iguana]

   Tyler I disagree.  In my experience there are several factors that allow someone to do well ( at least for some time ) with milk.   First is that most of us have grown up drinking pasteurized milk.  That's a lot of stored damaged proteins (not to mention a host of other rubbish) in the body.   Switching over to raw gives the body a chance to exchange for the damaged molecules.   That exchange can last months (in my experience) as the body cleans out.

Your hypothesis is like “eating raw, soaked wheat will “detox” gluten and other harmful molecules from the bread and pasta previously eaten.” You already suggested it:

As explained by Nicole at Montrame to me was that raw proteins will be substituted for old damaged cooked proteins that have been used and built into one's body.  As I have written here before, I had experienced that directly years ago when going instincto eating lots of raw tuna, and the massive eliminations resulting from have grown up as a kid on canned tuna.  I believe the same can be said for raw dairy for those having grown up on pasturized dairy.  And I wonder if that might have been what Guy Claude was experiencing when he experimented with dairy,, first cow, then goat?    Dairy is such a variable food item.  Does one have the necessary Amounts of Lactose digesting bacteria in the intestines to handle the lactose, or has one taken the efforts to build the bacteria numbers up.  Is one combining dairy with other foods?  Is the dairy fermented or straight from the animal.  Is the animal not only grass fed, but GREEN grass fed,, pretty hard to do year around in France, unless you're in the South of France (I would get mucous from my goats milk in the late fall (every year ) when the green grass would turn brown for the few months before the rains came again). 

and I answered you this:

That could be a possible explanation, Van. But I doubt GCB, as the meticulous observer he is, would have confused spontaneous infections with detoxination symptoms. Several years after he logically questioned the consumption of dairy products, a lot of scientific papers were published questioning also the suitability of animal milk for human consumption. At least in Europe, many dietitians are now also condemning the consumption of animal milk, moreover in adulthood, something no wild animal does on this planet. There’s no cross consumption of milk between different species, except some very rare and exceptional cases, each mammal species having it specific milk whit the exact composition adapted to the species’ offspring.

Here (edit: in Europe) there’s still only the dairy industry to promote milk consumption. 

to which you responded again:

Iguana, I don't understand this 'spontaneous infections' you mention...  I never had any, nor do I hear about them in other raw milk consuming circles.   But then when one wants to believe in a new and wonderful food, 'we' can forget or overlook minor difficulties.   But more on the spontaneous infections,,  if one is cleansing or eliminating by eating raw proteins, those old damaged molecules will be in the blood, lymph and stools etc, and my guess is there would be a hightened or taxed  or overwhelmed immune system, thus a potential for bacteria and virus's to feed on those molecules before being eliminated from the body.   This seems obvious to me,,,  and not to you?

These infections happen only once the immune system is out of “tolerance”, meaning the body must be out of habituation. If you never completely stop long enough to feed on some dairy, the immune systems remains in a state of “strike” against the constant influx of some foreign proteins and abnormal molecules which somehow pass through the intestinal barrier.

Spontaneous infections never happened to anyone when eating other raw animal foods. It happened only with milk, even with perfect raw milk from their own goat.

[svrn]

The above claims re detox are nonsense. A genuine detox is of a short, temporary nature, usually lasting days, never more than a few weeks. Granted, one can develop more immunity over a long period of time as one`s body grows stronger due to rising health(I think allergies increase in severity  if one is ill), but that has nothing to do with detox.

aajonus has done many tests on the excretions which you claim are not detox. He has found in all of the people he studied that these excretions often contain industrial chemicals that the patient has ingested many years ago.

this proves that it is detox.

[svrn]

I'm allergic to tomatoes.
Tried 2 tomatoes every morning with salt and pepper to kill tape worms for 2 weeks.
After 1 week I thought I was going to die ahead of the tape worms.

many people are allergic to oysters. does this mean that oyster is bad?

http://www.livestrong.com/article/72305-oyster-allergy-symptoms/

a genetic freak does not mean a certain food is bad.

[TylerDurden]

aajonus has done many tests on the excretions which you claim are not detox. He has found in all of the people he studied that these excretions often contain industrial chemicals that the patient has ingested many years ago.

this proves that it is detox.

While Aajonus did have some interesting data in other aspects,  his claims re detox are clearly fraudulent and it is no surprise why so many people view him as a charlatan because of this. I have listened to endless cassette tapes in which Aajonus claimed that virtually all his clients were infested with so-called toxic chemicals and that that was the real reason for their health-problems. This is simply not likely. AV`s claims in this regard have already been debunked in light of DR Wakefield`s evidence being disproven. Oh yes, AV also claimed my problems with raw dairy were due to detox; this bullshit  rather pissed me off, unsurprisingly.

[TylerDurden]

many people are allergic to oysters. does this mean that oyster is bad?

http://www.livestrong.com/article/72305-oyster-allergy-symptoms/

a genetic freak does not mean a certain food is bad.

Bullshit again. Allergies to raw oysters are a tiny minority. Allergies to grains and dairy are very high indeed.

[svrn]

aajonus has changed his mind on many occasions.

when listening to his interviews or speeches he brings up slight tweaks to his book every now and then.

[svrn]

Bullshit again. Allergies to raw oysters are a tiny minority. Allergies to grains and dairy are very high indeed.

prove to me that raw dairy allergies are greater than raw oyster allergies. I suspect you have no proof.

[van]

Your hypothesis is like “eating raw, soaked wheat will “detox” gluten and other harmful molecules from the bread and pasta previously eaten.” You already suggested it:and I answered you this:to which you responded again:These infections happen only once the immune system is out of “tolerance”, meaning the body must be out of habituation. If you never completely stop long enough to feed on some dairy, the immune systems remains in a state of “strike” against the constant influx of some foreign proteins and abnormal molecules which somehow pass through the intestinal barrier.

Spontaneous infections never happened to anyone when eating other raw animal foods. It happened only with milk, even with perfect raw milk from their own goat.

   Iguana I can't tell if you also share experiences of raw proteinous foods causing a cleanse, exchange of old cooked proteins?    But in regards to your question about sprouted wheat....  My answer would be yes, it Probably does.  And wheat grass even to a larger degree.    But let's get back to whether or not you'd agree with something like raw tuna causing an exchange for cooked tuna stored molecules in the body ( a theory heavily promoted by Instinctos)
when you get right down to it, what really is the process?  Could it be facilitated by enzymes?  They are catalysts for most of the functions in the body.  There certainly are a whole party of enzymes in wheat grass or heavily sprouted grain.    Doesn't make sense to me why you Might apply the exchange principle to one type of food and not to another.  But then maybe I don't understand you here?

[TylerDurden]

prove to me that raw dairy allergies are greater than raw oyster allergies. I suspect you have no proof.

This is childish. One only has to look at the data to see that allergies to pasteurised dairy are reported to be the most common:-

http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=141


Allergies to cooked molluscan shellfish appear to be less frequent than allergies to other types of cooked seafood:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18291306

Therefore, since incidence of allergies to pasteurised dairy is  far higher than
the incidence of allergies to cooked oysters, it follows logically that allergies to raw dairy are far more frequent than allergies to raw oysters.

[svrn]

first of all my uestion was about raw foods and also I believe that your logic regarding if it applies to cooked then must also apply to raw is also not proper logic.

anyway, let us put that aside as I entertain your response anyway.

from the milk data you posted

Milk allergy is estimated to affect 2% of infants and young children in the UK population.
The prevalence of CMA varies with age, with highest prevalence in early childhood (2-6%) and decreasing prevalence with increasing age.

The incidence in adulthood is just 0.1-0.5%.

from the shellfish data you posted

...

there is no data about percentage of shellfish allergies in the webpage you sent me. You have proven nothing. If I am wrong please quote the applicable data.

it seems to me as though you just post studies assuming that they back you up without reading them.

perhaps I will tackle the issue of the flawed logic which I previously mentioned after we get past this but I do not want to do this not as it is better to handle thigns one issue at a time.

[svrn]

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/allergies/Types/food-allergies/types/Pages/shellfish-allergy.aspx

Overall, shellfish allergy affects nearly 7 million people, or about 2.3 percent of the U.S. population.

according to the study about milk which you posted the only group which has higher allergy to milk than shellfish in the general population is early childhood. It would be interesting to seethe early childhood rate of shellfish allergy to compare as well for a more scientific approach.

--------

here is data on milk allergy in the us from the same website it does not give an exact percentage but states that it is 300k in young children for the us and that the rate decreases with age. do the math yourself and compare two us numbers

Milk allergy in children

Milk allergy is estimated to affect about 300,000 children under the age of 3 in the United States. Although it was formerly believed that the vast majority of children would outgrow this allergy by age 3, recent studies contradict this theory. Less than 20 percent of children enrolled in one study had outgrown their allergy by the age of 4. Still, approximately 80 percent of children with milk allergy will outgrow it by the age of 16.

i thought is hould post the milk thing too so as to compare two us populations and not compare us with uk in order to be more scientific.

i know i posted a lot of stuff but I like to overkill such poorly crafted arguments since its so easy

[TylerDurden]

Svrn, as usual, you are talking nonsense and are being quite wilfully stupid at the same time.

The point I made re allergies to pasteurised dairy being more prevalent than allergies to cooked oysters and that therefore the same applied to raw dairy and raw oysters  stands. We all know from general scientific data that cooking increases the allergenicity of foods so that allergenicity of foods correspondingly decreases a bit  in raw form - I would imagine that there are tiny exceptions such as grains, but that`s all.  The point is that if a particular food in cooked form is way more allergenic than another particular food in cooked form, it is logical to assume that the same relationship applies between raw versions of those two foods. That is, unless you can provide solid scientific data that "proves" that dairy is affected by heat to a far more harmful  extent than oysters ever could be.

As usual, you have deliberately twisted the data. The info you selected applied to shellfish in general, not just oysters. I had already provided a scientific link which conclusively showed that allergies to molluscan shellfish like oysters were  far less prevalent than allergies to other types of shellfish. You had after all asked about the difference between allergies to raw dairy and raw oysters, so you are deliberately using false data.

Shellfish allergy data is often misleading. I have seen figures ranging from 0.5 to 2.5% of the population

http://www.ctajournal.com/content/1/1/3

suffering from a wide variety of different shellfish allergies. The proportion of those who suffer specifically from an allergy to raw oysters is a small  proportion of that figure since oysters are only one of a myriad other types of shellfish, plus  I have already shown via previous scientific data that  molluscan shellfish like oysters are far less allergenic than other types of shellfish  or seafood in general.

Now, figures for allergies to raw and pasteurised dairy are a problem. There is way more to this business anyway:- casein  allergy, lactose intolerance and susceptibility to the nasty hormones in  dairy, raw or otherwise, the excess calcium in dairy blocking the uptake of magnesium into the body if dairy is consumed in excess, plus the osteoporosis aspect that Waiu Genriuu focuses on:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/eng.htm

http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=254

The very fact figures are cited of the world`s population being c.75% lactose-intolerant should indicate the nasty  side-effects of dairy, although lactose-intolerance is not an immune-response so not an allergy per se.

The figures given for milk allergy are between 2 to 3% of the infant population:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12487202

[svrn]

okay so lets pretend I said all shellfish to begin with instead of singling out oysters.

acording to your logic then shellfish are bad because mroe people have shellfish allergies than oyster allergies?

i dont think it makes a difference as im sure we can all agree that shellfish is superfood thus throwing that argument out the window.

your programming seems to have to have short circuited and simply started spewing off random bits of anti dairy propoganda based on studies done on heated dairy.

anyway, no need to keep going in circles. I argue for the readers sake and not to convince you so let the reader decide. I feel I have already given enough arguments for them to make their own decision.

[van]

svrn,  if you are interested, in your readers, you might take a poll here and see in fact who here is being persuaded, informed, impressed, supportive or appreciative by your many posts.   From this vantage point, you seem quite insensitive to any feedback offered here.

[svrn]

a vote would be irrelevant seeing as non members cant vote and 98 percent of the readers are non members.

either way I know my post are appreciated as several people  have asked for my personal advice here through personal messages have had pages of conversations with me picking my brain. THis includes my political and religious views as well and people are quite thankful. I also have the occasional person chiming here or there with one post saying they agree with me.

The fact that im one of the only ones on here willing to debate the other most vocal forum members does not mean I am alone in my views.

The way that I am constantly attacked and berated on here simply has people scared to agree with me publicly out of fear of recieving the same treatment but rest assured there are many who are wholly with me on many different fronts.

in fact the only thing im really ever doing on here is simply reiterating the work of aajonus vonderplanitz 95 percent of the time. Since he is the most popular authority in the world on raw animal foods ever I am hardly being as outlandish as most people like to claim.

it only seems otherwise because I have the same 3 people constantly trying to refute everything I say. thats great though, people just shouldnt get upset when I offer counterpoints to every point they make.

so the poll is wholly unnecessary as I already know people appreciate what I do.

[TylerDurden]

okay so lets pretend I said all shellfish to begin with instead of singling out oysters.

acording to your logic then shellfish are bad because mroe people have shellfish allergies than oyster allergies?

i dont think it makes a difference as im sure we can all agree that shellfish is superfood thus throwing that argument out the window.

your programming seems to have to have short circuited and simply started spewing off random bits of anti dairy propoganda based on studies done on heated dairy.

anyway, no need to keep going in circles. I argue for the readers sake and not to convince you so let the reader decide. I feel I have already given enough arguments for them to make their own decision.

You have already provided a whole list of dodgy, faulty, bankrupt "arguments". I have already called you out on your using fake premises etc. in your arguments.

As usual, you have stated further nonsense, such as the notion that we all believe that all shellfish is a superfood.  I have never stated that cooked shellfish was healthy.

Plus, given the above nonsense you spouted, you are clearly way too overly emotional and have no remote clue what logic actually means. Your inference that because non-oyster shellfish are more allergenic than oysters  that I "must" somehow believe that all shellfish are bad is laughable. Quite obviously, allergenicity has to do with a number of factors, whether raw or cooked or whatever.

Whatever the case, I have easily proven that , in terms of allergies to a specific food, allergies to raw dairy are way higher in incidence than allergies to genuinely palaeo foods. You tried to wriggle out of that by citing an entire class of food-types(ie all shellfish) but that was wholly dishonest.

Plus, just like Aajonus the charlatan, you tried to pretend that all those studies which condemn dairy are only focusing on pasteurised dairy, so that raw dairy is supposedly seen as harmless. Not true, Many of the points I cited, backed by scientific references,  referred to substances which were present in both raw and pasteurised dairy. Come to think of it, hormones in raw dairy would likely be far more harmful than in pasteurised dairy as some of the hormones would have likely been wiped out by pasteurisation. Similiarly, excess calcium is a major problem, regardless of whether the dairy is raw or pasteurised, as the key point was that it is excess calcium in general which causes osteoporosis etc., not how the calcium is absorbed.

Then there is the rather big issue of casein- and lactose-intolerance. Many pro-raw-dairy-advocates like AV  have tried to pretend that all problems with raw dairy are solely due to detox, but there are just too many rawists who have had nasty very   long-term problems with raw dairy for that to be true.What I find interesting is that 75% of the world`s population is lactose-intolerant. No other food when cooked has that high a figure of food-intolerance associated with it, which makes it clear that even in raw form, dairy is very harmful to human health.

[svrn]

more words being put in my mouth...keep going please.

[van]

go ahead then, if you are so confident, ask away,,,  who here finds you so very helpful.  But that  suggestion would have to come from you.  Like I said before,  'if you're interested'.   
    And this whole Aajonus thing,  like he's some god.     And as I have said before we typically believe what supports our own opinion. 

[svrn]

what do you want me to ask? i am really not so sure what a lot of your message means. Please be more clear as I cannot understand your syntax in this particular post.

I will not publicly out those who have sought my advice they can speak up themselves if they like.

the mods who can check my personal messages know i am not making it up.

i laugh at the popularity of aajonus bashing while the insanity of the gcb fruit gorging is left unquestioned and nobody dares insult it. and they say his wife got cancer because of beef? LOL! its the fruit guys...duh. God only knows if i instincto id be eating 70 percent fruit probably...and all my joints were hurting on just 30 percent fruit, luckily I put a stop to that madness.

[TylerDurden]

Considering that Iguana is our foremost instinctoist here and does not follow this fruit-heavy diet you mention, I suspect this is a nonsense claim. Instinctos are way more varied than you think.

AV is not perceived as infallible here as he recommended too many dodgy things like raw veggie juice, vast amounts of unhealthy raw dairy etc. etc. GCB is actually more in line with rawpalaeodiet ideas when one looks at the actual theory he provides, as opposed to his actual practices.