Any other Aspies following a Natural Hygiene raw food diet?

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

07 Nov 2009, 5:46 pm

Personally, I have been a raw foodist since my summer break, though with a few exceptions but I always come back, and can fully recommend it.

You feel awesome, can eat as much fruit as you want, and will be naturally thin.

Also, if you consume more calories than you need you naturally get a desire to be active, though I must say I don't always act on it.

Besides, the only disadvantage, being socially awkward as you can't really participate in social events related to eating, is really a non-issue for most here.

I'm even eating a little more "special", since a health expert I know from a forum recommended eating coriander and eating absolutely nothing but raw fruits and veggies for "curing" autism, so I thought why not give it a try?

If you think he is full of s**t, just go to the Zeitgeist Movement website and do an advanced search for Paradigm667, his username, and raw food or HIV, some things he has debated. I bet you could NEVER win a debate with him, he truly knows what he is talking about.

buryuntime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,662

07 Nov 2009, 11:08 pm

What do you mean by raw food? If you mean fruitarian, have fun with health problems.

callesen58
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

08 Nov 2009, 5:13 am

buryuntime wrote:

What do you mean by raw food? If you mean fruitarian, have fun with health problems.

Mostly raw fruit, some leafy vegetables, and rarely some nuts.

Also, health problems really only comes into play if you get vitamin D deficient, eat gourmet raw food, dried fruit or overat on citrus fruits.

But if raw food is so unhealthy, how come it is the only diet that has: Cured diabetes, cancer and many more diseases?

How come the native tribes in the southern hemisphere, who eat mostly raw food with a little bit of meat, are not often sick, do not have tooth decay, do not get malaria etc etc?

lotusblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,994

08 Nov 2009, 5:49 am

Im a big fan of ani phyo
http://www.aniphyo.com/index.php
http://www.youtube.com/user/aniphyo

Ive been interested in raw food for 7 years after I read leslie kentons book on raw food which is very good, its not in print now as its so old but this is one of hers which is very similar
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raw-Energy-Bibl ... 116&sr=8-2

I find if I stick to eating raw food Im so much more healthy and well and all my allergies disapeer. When Im not so virtuous and eating cooked foods I get lots of allergies, stomach problems, arthritus and generally feel much less well.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

08 Nov 2009, 6:13 am

A raw food diet is undoubtedly very healthy as long as you eat very little fruit, and lots of meat and fish.

Eating a lot of fruit puts pressure on the pancreas, and the liver, which is not a good idea, especially if you have previously eaten a lot of sugar, refined carbos, hydrogenated fats, etc, ( or have any kind of autoimmune-system damage to either organ, which can be caused by gluten or casein intolerance for example ).

Also 40% of the population of Europe and the USA are fructose intolerant; have trouble digesting it, which will result in an overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria in the gut, may encourage candida, and it also blocks the absorption of tryptophan, ( in meat etc ), leading to depression, anxiety etc.

A fruit diet over a few days is good for cleansing and purification, and also for exposing food intolerances, but not as a longterm regime. It's a very bad idea to rely on sugars, even from something as apparently "natural" and "good for you" as fruit, for energy. Getting your energy from protein and fats is much kinder to your body.

One of the reasons that a raw food diet high in fruit can make one feel hyperwell and full of energy for a few weeks/couple of months ( as in your case, callesen? ), is because it eliminates most, ( but not all if are fructose intolerant ), of the highly allergenic foods, like wheat/gluten, dairy/casein, corn, soya, eggs, pork, ( aswell as chocolate, coffee, and the starchy carbohydrates in general ), thus giving the immune-system a rest, ( and halting autoimmune-system damage to organs ).

But if persisted in a mainly fruit diet will inevitably result in serious vitamin, mineral and lipid/fat deficiencies, causing wide-ranging and serious health problems.

However a diet of raw, ( or lightly grilled so still very pink inside ), red meat, ( especially lamb and duck, but also grass-fed beef ), fish, seeds, with plenty of green salad, and other veg, and the occasional boiled ( non-raw ) egg, unpasteurised yoghurt, ( pref made with milk from grass-fed rather than grain-fed cows or goats ), and small amounts of fruit, is almost certainly a good idea. This diet would almost certainly profoundly improve your mental health; mood, cognitive functioning, including memory, energy levels, sleep, etc but could not "cure" autism, which after the age of 7 or so is almost certainly hard-wired.

PS. An interesting few pages from a book called "The Vegetarian Myth", by Lierre Keith, on the subject:

http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm
.

Last edited by ouinon on 08 Nov 2009, 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

callesen58
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

08 Nov 2009, 7:08 am

ouinon wrote:

A raw food diet is undoubtedly very healthy as long as you eat very little fruit, and lots of meat and fish.

Yeah, even though we evolved eating lots of fruit...

Quote:

Eating a lot of fruit puts pressure on the pancreas, and the liver, which is not a good idea, especially if you have previously eaten a lot of sugar, refined carbos, hydrogenated fats, etc, ( or have any kind of autoimmune-system damage to either organ, which can be caused by gluten or casein intolerance for example ).

Only if you mix fatty fruit with sugary fruit, like drinking an avocado-strawberry smoothie.

Infact, how can you even say a diet rich in raw fruit puts pressure on the pancreas when it is proven that the only thing that can cure type 2 diabetes is raw food?!

Quote:

Also 40% of the population of Europe and the USA are fructose intolerant; have trouble digesting it, which will result in an overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria in the gut, may encourage candida, and it also blocks the absorption of tryptophan, ( in meat etc ), leading to depression, anxiety etc.

Impaired digestion, not intolerant. That is why most people should stick to easy to digest, low starch fruit for the first weeks as a raw foodist.

Quote:

A fruit diet over a few days is good for cleansing and purification, and also for exposing food intolerances, but not as a longterm regime. It's a very bad idea to rely on sugars, even from something as apparently "natural" and "good for you" as fruit, for energy. Getting your energy from protein and fats is much kinder to your body.

Just a few days? Hah, I had litteraly no purification or cleansing for the first week, then in my second week my body went insane and tried to expel everything at once so my liver hurt a lot...

Following that my sweat just smelled horrible even if I bathed morning and night, though I didn't use soap or stuff since it's bad for the skin.

Now, my sweat nearly dosen't smell, and if I weren't so depressed right now since I just f****d up my social life, I would just smile all the time.

Quote:

One of the reasons that a raw food diet high in fruit can make one feel hyperwell and full of energy for a few weeks/couple of months ( as in your case, callesen? ), is because it eliminates most, ( but not all if are fructose intolerant ), of the highly allergenic foods, like wheat/gluten, dairy/casein, corn, soya, eggs, pork, ( aswell as chocolate, coffee, and the starchy carbohydrates in general ), thus giving the immune-system a rest, ( and halting autoimmune-system damage to organs ).

No, it dosen't give the immune system a rest, it gives the WHOLE body a rest.

You gotta realise that you can't divide up body functions, since every single part of it works together and performs multiple functions related to their primary function.. Like if you are poisoned your blood pressure increases because the heart is helping your liver and kidneys expel it.

Quote:

But if persisted in a mainly fruit diet will inevitably result in serious vitamin, mineral and lipid/fat deficiencies, causing wide-ranging and serious health problems.

Like what? Fruit has the most vitamins per calories, it also has the second-most minerals per calories, while vegetables are the opposite. Fruit also has the perfect omega 3 to 6 ratio, and much more.

Quote:

However a diet of raw, ( or lightly grilled so still very pink inside ), red meat, ( especially lamb and duck, but also grass-fed beef ), fish, seeds, with plenty of green salad, and other veg, and the occasional boiled ( non-raw ) egg, unpasteurised yoghurt, ( pref made with milk from grass-fed rather than grain-fed cows or goats ), and small amounts of fruit, is almost certainly a good idea.

This diet would almost certainly profoundly improve your mental health; mood, cognitive functioning, including memory, energy levels, sleep, etc

The design of our body is optimized for eating fruit, our intestines are simply too long for proper digestion of meat because it putrifies! And if you cook it, you denature the proteins, you harden the fat and thus make it toxic anyway.

Quote:

but could not "cure" autism, which after the age of 7 or so is almost certainly hard-wired.

Not if autism is caused by improper brain functioning caused by heavy metal poisoning

There is perhaps a reason most autists produce less gluthathione than their peers, and expel less heavy metals after exposure?

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

08 Nov 2009, 9:20 am

http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml

"WAKING UP FROM THE FRUITARIAN DREAMTIME" at:

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/fruit-dreams/index.shtml

"To Those Considering a Fruitarian Diet", at:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/ope ... f-1a.shtml

Quote:

The purpose of this site is to encourage critical thinking and self-assessment rather than conversion to any particular dietary philosophy. If this article or the other material on this site offends you, then we would suggest that you try and not take it too personally. We are not criticizing you, although we may be criticizing your lunch. If you consider criticism of your lunch to be criticism of yourself, then you may have a problem--you may be unintentionally identifying with your lunch. This is a process labeled elsewhere on the site as "lunch-identification," discussed in the article Functional and Dysfunctional Lunch-Attitudes. If you are offended by criticism of your lunch, then we invite you--sincerely and without condescension--to consider utilizing the occasion as an opportunity for self-examination and analysis of the attitudes you may hold regarding diet and its role in your psyche (and life).

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb ... %20fallacy

Quote:

Benesh listed the following symptoms of people on long-term fruitarian diets that he had seen in his own Natural Hygiene practice, which we should note are not so very different from those mentioned earlier in this interview for the majority of other total-raw-foodists who experience long-term troubles:

[R]idged nails, gingivitis, dental caries, dry skin and brittle hair, lowered red blood cell count and low hemoglobin percentage. Over a long period of time (at least one year or more) the blood serum level drops to a point of an impending pathological state if not corrected.

Many of them display serious signs of neurological disorders, while some experience emotional upsets and extreme nervousness and often complain of insomnia. When their nutritional program is corrected these signs disappear and the patient finds himself in a much improved state of health.

I recently spoke with a health-minded medical doctor, who embarked on this lopsided program and did very well, experiencing a high state health for about a year, when almost suddenly a loss of weight was experienced and neurological signs were evident. This doctor took a series of blood and serum tests plus other pertinent tests, which verified what I have observed in fruitarians and excessive fruit-eaters, and corroborates my findings.

Another cardinal lack that occurs quite often is a distinct lack of vitamin B-12. This lack of B-12 gives rise to the neurological signs that indicate a serious deprivation of this vital element needed to keep the nervous system operating at a so-called normal level.

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb ... ew1b.shtml

After years of attempting to follow a fruitarian and/or raw food and or vegan diet Ward Nicholson:

Nicholson wrote:

... was at the bookstore when out popped the words The Paleolithic Prescription[1] (by Boyd Eaton, M.D. and anthropologists Marjorie Shostak and Melvin Konner) on the spine of a book just within the range of my peripheral vision. Let me tell you I tackled that book in nothing flat! But when I opened it up and began reading, I was very dismayed to find there was much talk about the kind of lean game animals our ancestors in Paleolithic times (40,000 years ago) ate as an aspect of their otherwise high-plant-food diet,* but nowhere was there a word anywhere about pure vegetarianism in our past except one measly paragraph to say it had never existed and simply wasn't supported by the evidence.[2]

I have to tell you that while I bought the book, red lights were flashing as I argued vociferously in my head with the authors on almost every other page, exploiting every tiny little loophole I could find to save my belief in humanity's original vegetarian and perhaps even fruitarian ways. "Perhaps you haven't looked far enough back in time," I told them inside myself. "You are just biased because of the modern meat-eating culture that surrounds us," I silently screamed, "so you can't see the vegetarianism that was really there because you aren't even looking for it!"

So in order to prove them wrong, I decided I'd have to unearth all the scientific sources at the local university library myself and look at the published evidence directly. But I didn't do this at first--I stalled for about a year, basically being an ostrich for that time, sort of forgetting about the subject to bury the cognitive dissonance I was feeling.

News of long-time vegetarians abandoning the diet due to failure to thrive. In the meantime, though, I happened to hear from a hatha yoga teacher I was acquainted with who taught internationally and was well-known in the yoga community both in the U.S. and abroad in the '70s and early '80s, who, along with his significant other, had been vegetarian for about 17 years. To my amazement, he told me in response to my bragging about my raw-food diet that he and his partner had re-introduced some flesh foods to their diet a few years previously after some years of going downhill on their vegetarian diets, and it had resulted in a significant upswing in their health. He also noted that a number of their vegetarian friends in the yoga community had run the same gamut of deteriorating health after 10-15 years as vegetarians since the '70s era.

Once again, of course, I pooh-poohed all this to myself because they obviously weren't "Hygienist" vegetarians and none of their friends probably were either. You know the line of thinking: If it ain't Hygienic vegetarianism, by golly, we'll just discount the results as completely irrelevant! If there's even one iota of difference between their brand of vegetarianism and ours, well then, out the window with all the results!

But it did get me thinking, because this was a man of considerable intellect as well as a person of integrity whom I respected more than perhaps anyone else I knew.

Gradual personal health decline on vegan diet. And then a few months after that, I began noticing I was having almost continual semi-diarrhea on my raw-food diet and could not seem to make well-formed stools. I was not sleeping well, my stamina was sub-par both during daily tasks and exercise, which was of concern to me after having gotten back into distance running again, and so real doubts began creeping in. It was around this time I finally made that trip to the university library.

And so what did you find?

Enough evidence for the existence of animal flesh consumption from early in human prehistory (approx. 2-3 million years ago) that I knew I could no longer ignore the obvious. For awhile I simply could not believe that Hygienists had never looked into this. But while it was disillusioning, that disillusionment gradually turned into something exciting because I knew I was looking directly at what scientists knew based on the evidence. It gave me a feeling of more power and control, and awareness of further dietary factors I had previously ruled out that I could experiment with to improve my health, because now I was dealing with something much closer to "the actual" (based on scientific findings and evidence) as opposed to dietary "idealism."

Paleontological evidence shows
humans have always been omnivores

What kind of "evidence" are we talking about here?

At its most basic, an accumulation of archaeological excavations by paleontologists, ranging all the way from the recent past of 10,000-20,000 years ago back to approximately 2 million years ago, where ancient "hominid" (meaning human and/or proto-human) skeletal remains are found in conjunction with stone tools and animal bones that have cut marks on them. These cut marks indicate the flesh was scraped away from the bone with human-made tools, and could not have been made in any other way. You also find distinctively smashed bones occurring in conjunction with hammerstones that clearly show they were used to get at the marrow for its fatty material.[3]

Prior to the evidence from these earliest stone tools, going back even further (2-3 million years) is chemical evidence showing from strontium/calcium ratios in fossilized bone that some of the diet from earlier hominids was also coming from animal flesh.[4] (Strontium/calcium ratios in bone indicate relative amounts of plant vs. animal foods in the diet.[5]) Scanning electron microscope studies of the microwear of fossil teeth from various periods well back into human prehistory show wear patterns indicating the use of flesh in the diet too.[6]

The consistency of these findings across vast eons of time show that these were not isolated incidents but characteristic behavior of hominids in many times and many places.

Evidence well-known in scientific community; controversial only for vegetarians. The evidence--if it is even known to them--is controversial only to Hygienists and other vegetarian groups, few to none of whom, so far as I can discern, seem to have acquainted themselves sufficiently with the evolutionary picture other than to make a few armchair remarks. To anyone who really looks at the published evidence in the scientific books and peer-reviewed journals and has a basic understanding of the mechanisms for how evolution works, there is really not a whole lot to be controversial about with regard to the very strong evidence indicating flesh has been a part of the human diet for vast eons of evolutionary time. The real controversy in paleontology right now is whether the earliest forms of hominids were truly "hunters," or more opportunistic "scavengers" making off with pieces of kills brought down by other predators, not whether we ate flesh food itself as a portion of our diet or not.[7]

And another longterm fruitarian/vegan's experiences, at:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/bio ... o-1a.shtml

Quote:

My experiments with sprouts continued, and I slowly increased the percentage of sprouts (and green vegetables) in my diet and decreased the percentage of fruit. This type of diet was easier to follow and more satisfying than the preceding diets. However, there were still a few problems, notably cravings (in the early 1990s) and fatigue. I was 100% raw for much (but not all) of this time. In the early 1990s I got addicted to dates again--an addiction that lasted nearly a year. (I ate approximately 1 pound or 0.5 kg per day.) Sugar was a real problem for me--probably a legacy of my many years on sweet fruit, i.e., the fruitarian years.

In 1994, chronic health problems developed, and I turned to yoga and Ayurveda, the traditional medical/wellness system of India, for help. A blood test done in late December 1994 showed a serious deficiency of vitamin B-12, an apparent legacy of my many years as a vegan and fruitarian. I now use vitamin B-12 supplements (and have been attacked by extremists for doing so) to make up for the deficiencies of the "perfect" 100% raw vegan/fruitarian diet I followed for so many years.

The primary influences on me during this period were, in raw foods: Ann Wigmore, Brian Clement, and Gabriel Cousens. I got into Ayurveda via the writings of Dr. Vasant Lad, Dr. Robert Svoboda, Bhagwan Dash, David Frawley, and others. (Please note that Gabriel Cousens is not, and was not, an Ayurvedic influence for me.) During this period, I also dis-associated myself from Swami Kailashananda (the raw foods yogi), as his behavior over a long period led me to the inescapable view/opinion that he was thoroughly corrupt.

In 1996, under the influence of writers and friends in the yoga and Ayurveda communities, I started experimenting with raw dairy in my diet. This led me to my current diet; lacto-vegetarian:

My current diet is 75-90% raw ( 10-25% cooked foods: mostly steamed vegetables such as broccoli, asparagus, string beans, some rice, in the form of khitcharee, a mixture of basmati rice and split mung beans, mildly spiced, that is very easy to digest ) and includes some dairy--mostly raw milk or yogurt and a very small amount of ghee (a cooked dairy product), sprouts, nuts, avocados, raw vegetables, fruits, and other foods (raw honey, etc.).

This appears to suggest that so long as eat enough animal products, eg. dairy, ( if are not casein or lactose intolerant ), plus enough vegetables, and a little cooked rice and pulses, ( though I would recommend fish and/or egg instead ) , and very little fruit, it is possible to remain healthy while on a predominantly raw diet.

.

callesen58
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

08 Nov 2009, 10:14 am

Only citing one source?

You should be able to do better than that, I can personally find tons of websites supporting my viewpoint, while you can only use Beyondveg?

If it really is the truth, shouldn't there be more saying how it is true? Since truth spreads as an infection...

Also, how about defeating my arguments instead of just copy-pasting text from the 'net?

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

08 Nov 2009, 11:05 am

callesen58 wrote:

I can personally find tons of websites supporting my viewpoint.

Great! Let's see them!

I am copying and pasting because I think these articles put things so well, and I genuinely didn't know where to start correcting the many unsupported and fundamentally erroneous claims that you made in your last but one post, and so decided that a general overview of the subject was more important, and might be more helpful, to anyone who is considering pursuing a diet which would, over time, put their mental and physical health in serious danger.

Here is a great article by Dr. Eades; "Are We Meat Eaters or Vegetarians?", available at:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low- ... s-part-ii/

The gist being that "We don't eat meat because we're human, but we are human because we eat meat".

Quote:

Aiello and Wheeler examined the data on the metabolic rates and sizes of the various expensive [ in terms of energy use ] tissues and learned that for a 65 kg primate, the heart, the kidneys, and the liver were approximately the same size as those of a 65 kg (143 lb) human. The greater metabolic rate of the large human brain was compensated for by a GI tract significantly decreased in size. It turns out that the GI tract of a 65 kg human is just a little over half the size of the GI tract of a similar sized primate.

The combined mass of the metabolically expensive tissues for the reference adult human is remarkably close to that expected for the average 65-kg primate, but the contributions of individual organs to this total are very different from the expected ones. Although the human heart and kidneys are both close to the size expected for a 65-kg primate, the mass of the splanchnic organs (the abdominal organs) is approximately 900 g less that expected. Almost all of this shortfall is due to a reduction in the gastro-intestinal tract, the total mass of which is only 60% of that expected for a similar-sized primate. Therefore, the increase in mass of the human brain appears to be balanced by a almost identical reduction in size of the gastro-intestinal tract.

Quote:

In order to obey Kleiber’s law, ( about metabolic rates and body size ] something had to "force" [ enable ] our guts to get smaller at the same time. What could that be?

According to Aiello and Wheeler, it is increased diet quality that allowed the gut to get smaller while still absorbing the necessary nutrients to fuel the metabolism. As they put it

The results presented here [in the ETH] suggest that the relationship between relative brain size and diet is primarily a relationship between relative brain size and relative gut size, the latter being determined by dietary quality. This would imply that a high-quality diet is necessary for this encephalization, no matter what may be selecting for that encephalization. A high-quality diet relaxes the metabolic constraints on encephalization by permitting a relatively smaller gut, thereby reducing the considerable metabolic cost of this tissue.

How did the our most ancient relatives the early hominids increase the quality of their diets?

A considerable problem for the early hominids, a large bodied species, would have been to provide themselves with sufficient quantities of high-quality food to permit the necessary reduction of the gut. The obvious solution was to include increasingly large amounts of animal-derived food in the diet.

Increasing the amount of easily-digested food of animal origin allowed us to shrink our guts while expanding our brains. Had we remained on a diet high in vegetation, we would not have been able to expand our brains irrespective of how much more thinking those brains would have needed to do. It just wouldn’t have been possible to do so without violating Kleiber’s law.

Take the gorilla, for example, almost pure vegetarians that spend their entire ‘working’ day foraging and eating, which they have to do to get enough calories to maintain their enormous bulk. They have large guts and pay for it by having small brains. Even smaller than that of our most primitive ancestors, the australophthecines.

Carbon 13 isotope analysis has shown that Australopithecus africanus (the species that came right after Lucy) consumed meat. As you go up the lineage from Australopithecus and through Homo, you find that more and more meat was consumed the higher up the tree you go.

Quote:

Chimps and gorillas have large, protuberant bellies, which supports the fact that they have larger GI tracts, but what about our ancient ancestors. All we have to go on are skeletal remains, which show nicely that their heads (and brains) were much smaller than ours, but what about their guts? How do we really know their guts were larger? According to Kleiber, they would have to be, but how to we really know they were?

The large gut of the living pongids gives their bodies a somewhat pot-bellied appearance, lacking a discernible waist. This is because the rounded profile of the abdomen is continuous with that of the lower portion of the rib cage, which is shaped like an inverted funnel, and also because the lumbar region is relatively short (three to four lumber vertebrae).

The drawing below from the ETH shows the inverted-funnel shape of the ribcage of the chimpanzee on the left. You can mentally draw the lines downward from these ribs and envision the pot-bellied look of the abdomen that these primates evidence. Looking at the image on the right, you can see that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy’s species) has the same inverted-funnel shaped rib cage, indicating a large belly and a low-quality diet.

The drawing in the middle is of a modern human. If you extrapolate the lines down from the human rib cage, you can see that they lead to a more narrow waist. Makes you think more of a lean, rangy wolf or other slim-waisted carnivore, whereas the other two don’t.

Quote:

Aiello and Wheeler conclude: If an encephalized animal does not have a correspondingly elevated BMR ( which according to Kleiber's law, it can’t ), its energy budget must be balanced in some other way. The expensive-tissue hypothesis suggested here is that this balance can be achieved by a reduction in size of one of the other metabolically expensive organs in the body (liver, kidney, heart or gut). We argue that this can best be done by the adoption of a high-quality diet, which permits a relatively small gut and liberates a significant component of BMR for the encephalized brain. No matter what was selecting for encephalization, a relatively large brain could not be achieved without a correspondingly [sic] increase in dietary quality unless the metabolic rate was correspondingly increased.

Aiello and Wheeler have pretty thoroughly demolished the notion that humans are actually designed by the forces of natural selection to be vegetarians.

It was our gradual drift toward the much higher quality diet provided by food from animal sources that allowed us to develop the large brains we have. It was hunting and meat eating that reduced our GI tracts and freed up our brains to grow. As I wrote at the start of this post, the evidence indicates that we didn’t evolve to eat meat – we evolved because we ate meat.

Last edited by ouinon on 08 Nov 2009, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

08 Nov 2009, 11:29 am

You want people to cite websites, callesen?

You are aware, are you not, that there is absolutely no vetting of information on websites? You can put websites out there saying any damn-fool thing you want (without half trying, I could give you links to over a dozen websites that claim the Holocaust never happened, and at least three that maintain the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is part of a conspiracy).

Find me some peer-reviewed journal articles supporting this silly fruitarian thing, and you might get my attention.

As for our ancestors' diets, let's be honest - our ancestors evolved eating pretty near anything they could arm-wrestle into their mouths best two falls out of three. Roots, berries, nuts, small animals, the occasional neighbor in some cultures - if they could chew it, they'd eat it, and if they couldn't chew it, after discovering the control of fire and the making of pots, they'd boil it until they could (I understand this is still the basis of cuisine in England ).

Yes, they ate less meat, because it was harder to get hold of. They also tended to die around the age of 30 or so, often subject to crippling arthritis. Coincidence?

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

DavidK
Sea Gull

Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 219
Location: Kent, UK

08 Nov 2009, 11:35 am

The OP reads like one of those tinfoil-hat conspiracy sites...

_________________
When faced with my demons, I clothe them and feed them
And I smile, yes I smile as they're taking me over
(Catatonia- Strange Glue)

callesen58
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

08 Nov 2009, 12:47 pm

ouinon wrote:

Great, they just proved that we are intended to eat fruit, while other primates mostly eat leaves.

Quote:

Now, there are so many assumptions in this quote that it is absurd...

Fruit is hella easier to digest than meat... Carbohydrates are way easier to break down than fat and protein. Besides, in other to eat meat we need a large brain, to invent weapons and to use fire, so we couldn't have evolved a large brain eating meat...

Also, gorillas eat LEAVES mostly, get it? The leaves they eat are full of protein, which explains their muscle mass, while humans are intended to be slim and athletic so we can run from fruit tree to fruit tree on the savannah.

And last but not last: Carbon dating is BS. physicsworld(.)com/cws/article/news/36108

Quote:

No, it makes one think of an efficient runner. Every single part of our body is designed to run as efficient as possible, unlike any other animal on Earth.

Quote:

DOH!

They haven't even explained how monkeys could even get meat: For one, they are slow walking and cannot run for more than 30-50 meters.

Another fact is that monkey, aswell as human, teeth are NOT designed to eat meat! We simply do not have the razor-sharp teeth that are required to eat raw meat...

Not to mention that they still haven't explained how meat is such a good source of calories: The usage of protein as an energy source is highly inefficient. not to mention it releases a lot of toxic substances, and if the body gets above like 40-50 grams of protein a day, it has to break it down to be used as energy.

callesen58
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

08 Nov 2009, 1:02 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:

Most people get all their knowlegde of nutrition from the agricultural industry, is that better?

Quote:

(without half trying, I could give you links to over a dozen websites that claim the Holocaust never happened, and at least three that maintain the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is part of a conspiracy).

See, you have just proved yourself full of s**t by linking what I say to the Holocaust or to the flat-eathers... Such a blatant Ad Hominem should really be above any autist, as they should be smart enough to do a proper debate with facts...

Quote:

Find me some peer-reviewed journal articles supporting this silly fruitarian thing, and you might get my attention.

Ecologos(.)org refers to a lot of peer-reviewed jounal articles supporting raw foodism.

As for our ancestors' diets, let's be honest - our ancestors evolved eating pretty near anything they could arm-wrestle into their mouths best two falls out of three. Roots, berries, nuts, small animals, the occasional neighbor in some cultures - if they could chew it, they'd eat it, and if they couldn't chew it, after discovering the control of fire and the making of pots, they'd boil it until they could (I understand this is still the basis of cuisine in England

).

Our ancestors who lived in Africa, which is mostly tropical/sub-tropical, had as much fruit as they wanted, except during a drought but then they ate roots and insects mostly or temporarily moved into the forests, and thus had no need to eat substandard foods like roots, small animals or other humans...

Quote:

Yes, they ate less meat, because it was harder to get hold of. They also tended to die around the age of 30 or so, often subject to crippling arthritis. Coincidence?

Dumb much? Look at the natives in rainforests today, they live atleast as long we do, but they remain active up till their death, they don't suffer from malaria which their agricultural neighbours do, and they are generally in extremely good health. Yet they eat atleast 80% raw fruit with the rest being nuts, leafy vegetables and rarely meat.

callesen58
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

09 Nov 2009, 3:21 am

DavidK wrote:

The OP reads like one of those tinfoil-hat conspiracy sites...

Great work with the ad-hominem there.

Try a proper argument next time?

macushla
Snowy Owl

Joined: 21 Nov 2008
Age: 73
Gender: Female
Posts: 132

27 Nov 2009, 3:02 pm

A goodly percentage of my diet is raw, usually in the form of "green smoothies" made from leafy greens in my 30+ year old Vitamix. Yeah, I've been at this for quite a while.

I'm with ouinon on the dangers of too many fruits. Yeah, we're all out of Africa if we look back far enough
but my people continued to evolve in northern Europe where most fruit is seasonal and rarely surviving without some sort of degenerative processing.

A good system to go by is to buy local. If it isn't in season where you live, don't eat it.

Of course there are adjustments one might want to do to compensate for living in an air conditioned environment during the summer and having a heated home in the winter, but I've found I can accomplish that through physical movement (for me hatha yoga).

The short of it, unless a person already has a major health issue going on, they might feel they can afford to "burn the candle at both ends" for quite a few years as far as their diet goes.
By that I mean,
illness caused by diet in an otherwise healthy person (no food sensitivities or inabilities to absorb nutrition) probably isn't going to show up loudly until their 3rd or 4th decade of life

and when the ill effects of a poorly chosen diet start to manifest as physical phenomena its usually a long haul back to health
providing the person is ready to make life style changes.
("Life style changes" = not a happy topic for us on the spectrum, eh.)

Myself? It wasn't until I was into my 40s that I found I had to add some animal flesh back into my diet and lay off all unsprouted grains.

Francis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

28 Nov 2009, 12:31 am

My expert (sarah Palin) says:

Quote:

If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?

I have been thinking about doing a raw food type of diet thing. Mainly becuase I have to get my cholestrol under control. I'll have to keep track to see if it has any effect on my AS.

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Similar Topics
Dandruff, diet, isotretinoin in Health, Fitness, and Sports	31 Jan 2025, 1:20 pm Ursula
Food for thought? in Computers, Math, Science, and Technology	07 Feb 2025, 12:20 pm Stargazer99
Food industry lies in Health, Fitness, and Sports	14 Jan 2025, 8:55 am satineeraj
Is it common for aspires to not like a lot types of food? in General Autism Discussion	05 Mar 2025, 1:31 pm ToughDiamond

Any other Aspies following a Natural Hygiene raw food diet? Post Reply New Topic

Any other Aspies following a Natural Hygiene raw food diet?