-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Geoffrey Purcell
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:36 PM



>>1)  It's perfectly true that people have had health-problems from doing
>>the Primal Diet. This is because of the hefty amounts of raw dairy in that
>>diet ( people with sever health-problems are more likely to have enhanced
>>issues with food-intolerances/allergies, so raw dairy is a real no-no) -
>>plus the primal diet contains hefty amounts of raw veggie-juices (some
>>claim that juicing veg makes the antinutrients in veg more bioavailable as
>>well). However, there are many RVAFers  going for perfectly healthy diets
>>like the raw, palaeolithic diet who do not have these various
health->>problems and thrive on such diets.

I don't doubt there are people who thrive on the raw diet you describe. The
chance of success is much greater when you remove the insane amounts of
dairy, honey and fruit juice. Part of the problem is that most people come
to that diet with existing health problems so it may be hard to determine
what is causing what problem.  You may be 100% correct, time will tell as
there are more raw people on the program you describe for 20+ years. 



>>I would say that a genuine detox is one in which one feels slightly better
>>after the detox than before. Plus, a detox that always occurs immediately
>>after intake of  a particular food cannot be genuine, and is more than
>>likely to be a sign of allergy. Also, detoxes should gradually decrease to
>>0, over time, until they no longer appear. When Aajonus refers to constant
>>detoxes occurring constantly for years, then, clearly, such are never
>>genuine.

I agree 100%. I will refrain from ranting about Aajonus.

>>2) I'm afraid that the notion that all cooked food is more digestible or
>>more bioabsorbable is seriously flawed. This mainly applies to things like
>>grains. Scientists have already proven that raw meats are more digestible,
>>NOT less, than cooked meats:-

You may be correct. I will check your sources. I am not sure about your wiki
sources.



>>3)  "Humans have been cooking food for longer than they were human". Very
>>easily disproven. Judging from your other post, you are a  believer in
>>Wrangham's notions despite him being ridiculed by most other
>>anthropologists as being merely a chimp researcher etc.:-

IMO, Wrnaghams ideas are nonsense.  We seem to have made a leap around the
time we domesticated dogs. That probably allowed us hunt bigger game and get
more access to fat. I don't know which came first. Tubers would have been a
famine food or a supplement at best.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9b8e35e3413d007733a568a8bda7e004.html
We didn't descend from Neanderthal. We may have interbred with them. No one
is sure at this point, However; they did control fire 400,000 years ago.  In
all probability, our version of Human did also.  When I get my time machine
out of the pawn shop I will report back my findings. I need to be careful to
avoid the Morlocks in case I go the wrong way.

-David