Sun, May-20-07, 15:50
|
|
Experimenter
Posts: 25,886
|
|
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
|
|
Sorry, I'm blathering a lot kind of thinking through some of these things for myself.
Hmmm... still reading this thing but I did find this:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-...terview2e.shtml
Quote:
Okay, let's move on to the hunter-gatherers you mentioned earlier. I've heard that while some tribes may have low rates of chronic degenerative disease, others don't, and may also suffer higher rates of infection than we do in the West.
This is true. Not all "hunter-gatherer" tribes of modern times eat diets in line with Paleolithic norms. Aspects of their diets and/or lifestyle can be harmful just as modern-day industrial diets can be. When using these people as comparative models, it's important to remember they are not carbon copies of Paleolithic-era hunter-gatherers.[157] They can be suggestive (the best living examples we have), but they are a mixed bag as "models" for behavior, and it is up to us to keep our thinking caps on.
We've already mentioned the Eskimos above as less-than-exemplary models. Another example is the Masai tribe of Africa who are really more pastoralists (animal herders) than hunter-gatherers. They have low cholesterol levels ranging from 115 to 145,[158] yet autopsies have shown considerable atherosclerosis.[159] Why? Maybe because they deviate from the Paleolithic norm of 20-25% fat intake due to their pastoralist lifestyle by eating a 73% fat diet that includes large amounts of milk from animals in addition to meat and blood.*[160] Our bodies do have certain limits.
|
Another good, but unrelated point:
Quote:
Animals in the wild on natural diets are not disease-free. Contrary to popular Hygienic myth, animals in the wild eating natural diets in a natural environment are not disease-free, and large infectious viral and bacterial plagues in the past and present among wild animal populations are known to have occurred. (To cite one example, rinderpest plagues in the African Serengeti occurred in the 1890s and again around 1930, 1960, and 1982 among buffalo, kudu, eland, and wildebeest.[165])
It becomes obvious when you look into studies of wild animals that natural diet combined with living in natural conditions is no guarantee of freedom from disease and/or infection. Chimpanzees, our closest living animal relatives, for instance, can and do suffer bouts in the wild from a spectrum of ailments very similar to those observed in human beings: including pneumonia and other respiratory infections (which occur more often during the cold and rainy season), polio, abscesses, rashes, parasites, diarrhea, even hemorrhoids on occasion.[166] Signs of infectious disease in the fossil record have also been detected in remains as far back as the dinosaur-age, as have signs of immune system mechanisms to combat them.[167]
|
Lest we think that paleo is superior to modern practices in everything. It isn't.
Read this guys entire journey through the raw foodist/vegan thing and you see some of the same logic mistakes people make about that being done here too. If you're sick it is your fault for not adhering closely enough, the diet is perfect and you shouldn't be sick. If you're sick you're "detoxing". All things that people on any sort of diet use as reasoning.
I know this won't be a popular opinion but I think this applies to the raw milk thing too. The reasoning is that processed milk isn't good for us because it is processed but raw milk is because it is natural. But natural doesn't necessarily mean something is good, there are loads of natural things that are quite very bad for us. I think we all realize that. Natural milk is good for the baby critter it was meant for, but is it good for humans? Yes, if the option is starvation or nutrients lacking in the diet. The real question is, is it optimal or sub-optimal in the modern human diet in the context most of us are living in? Here's where I think it gets foofy and hard to answer because we don't have a lot of data backed up by good science. You have to test it out in your body. Is your body ok with it or does it give you increased mucous, sinus infections, allergies, IBS or acne?
But to do this we need to have a point of reference where we think we're eating good foods that don't compromise our health. That's where I think an elimination diet comes in handy and having a relatively stable base point to make the comparison. No IBS, no sinus symptoms, no chronic stuffy nose, no strange rashes, no brain fog.
Personally I'm still striving to get to that point. It's really hard because I have to battle the call of the vending machine.
|