Arguments from the Veg friends against Meat Eating and the realities of the Nature

[Alam_dar]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The so-called 'healing effect'  is a mumbo-jumbo bullshit theory. Show us medical evidence of WHAT is healed due to eating it. Show us the active chemical, change in health that is physically observed. If you can't, its just bullshit. 

I wonder if you don't know that organ like liver is a super food? 

Didn't we talk about the chemical changes and toxins that are created by cooking? Your answer was you don't care. It was not a scientific answer. 

Regarding healing effects of raw liver, didn't I present you the FDA approved capsules of raw liver and people using them and healing their illnesses?

 

Do you know the famous nutritionist Dr. Weston Price? He stated that many cultures that make use of organ meat as a regular part of  their diets lived free from many of the chronic illness that plague so many Americans. Dr. Price also points out that in the animal kingdom a predator will instinctively go for the organ meat because it is such a powerhouse of nutrition. 

 

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/food-features/the-liver-files/

So what makes liver so wonderful? Quite simply, it contains more nutrients, gram for gram, than any other food. In summary, liver provides:

• An excellent source of high-quality protein
• Nature’s most concentrated source of vitamin A
• All the B vitamins in abundance, particularly vitamin B12
• One of our best sources of folic acid
• A highly usable form of iron
• Trace elements such as copper, zinc and chromium; liver is our best source of copper
• An unidentified anti-fatigue factor
• CoQ10, a nutrient that is especially important for cardio-vascular function
• A good source of purines, nitrogen-containing compounds that serve as precursors for DNA and RNA.

 

What else scientific proof you need? It is not a medicine, it is a food. And therefore results is studied on the people who use it (it is the scientific approach). People are heavily reporting the following benefits:

 

You said that some of Ayurveda medicines have been scientifically verified. How? Science only told which components they have. Similarly science has told which components are found in the liver.

Afterwards, scientific approach was to ask the people to use Ayurveda medicines and take their witness as result. 

Same technique is applied here when liver is used by the people, and then their witnesses is present as result, but you are denying it in this case. 

 

Show me the witnesses of people who used the "cooked" liver and level of healing they had?

As compared to cooked liver, there are many folds more witnesses about the raw liver healing effects. So much more that raw liver has been used for making of capsules today in whole American, Canada, Europe, Australia everywhere. Nobody is using the cooked liver for this purpose. 

 

 

Quote

Did you miss the part where it talks about the parasites present in RAW fish and clams. Don't say thats due to farming- it makes no mention of it.

No brother, I didn't miss.

But it seems you missed that I dealt in details with parasites from your own next Link. 

 

Quote

So if freezing raw fish is the simple technique to do it, unless you are an Inuit, this technique is *not* valid as Paleo-diet, as your paleo-ancestors from ANYWHERE in the world, except polar, artic circle areas, do not have access to freezing their food year round.

Your conjecture of all year Snow is wrong. In summer, the temperature rise up to +25 degree Celsius.

Even in the winters, they are eating freshly caught fish and other animals who are not frozen, but their body is still warm and they are taking blood out of them and the organs too at the spot. 

 

Quote

In earier centuries, they ate it around winter, where they COULD freeze the fish. 

I am afraid you have no idea about the "Matjes (raw herring)"  of Europe. 

Matjes is made only from Herring which is caught during the month of Mai to July (it is the time when they have the maximum fat content). Therefore, in the earlier centuries, Herring was never ever frozen before it was consumed as Matjes.  You can read about it here. 

https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/holland-stories/dutch-food-and-cuisine/taste-the-season-hollandse-nieuwe-herring.htm

 

Here is the List of 16 more raw meat dishes, which are eaten for centuries in different parts of the world. 

https://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/15-raw-meat-dishes-from-around-the-world 

 

 

Quote

Some of them (Ayurveda herbs) are not placebo, as some of them have been scientifically verified. Most of them is placebo, as no chemical change has been observed in those bullshit remedies. 

I wrote about it earlier. 

 

Quote

Testifying from millions of people is as valid as testimonials from millions of religious people who have 'physical healing effects from communion with God'. That is the entire basis of the Pentecostal church. As your posts prove, people can believe any number of bullshit and even feel good, based on their mental state (placebo effect). Give us empiric proof, because if it does heal, then you should be able to find the active compound that DOES heal and note its healing power. Yet, you have big fat zero in that regard. 

 

Unfair. 

Did I ask the people to believe me?

No, I asked them to read and experience it themselves. 

Religious people say they prayed and then they met god. But normal people when pray, they never meet god. 

But in this case, it is not asked to believe us, but to believe themselves by personal experience.

Are you able to see the difference?

 

Regarding compounds, then science has already told which compounds are found in organs and fish. Afterwards scientific study also rely on the witnesses of the people who use that thing. 

 

 

Quote

Yes, thats called habituation. Yet, when you hold out a cooked piece of meat in front of a toddler vs raw meat, toddler goes for cooked meat. Showing us that cooked meat is what we are 'hardwired' to eat but it is not an unchangeable hardwiring and you can habituate yourself to like raw meat. 

Cooked food without "salt" and without "herbs" has awful taste, like all other cooked vegetables. 

While only raw meat and even raw vegetables and raw green herbs has the complete taste. 

I don't think that our Paleo ancestors had any access to the salt (only in rare cases perhaps they were able to get hands to salt). 

 

Give toddler cooked meat without salt and raw meat without salt, and you will see in 100% cases toddler will choose the raw meat. 

 

Quote

Inuit do *not* have access to fire easily. That is why. Yes, they can make fire. But if anyone has ever visited traditional inuit communities, fire is sacred and held ONLY for ceremonial purposes. Why ? Because the arctic circle has ZERO trees and lichens & fern do not burn easy (or create a flame).Hence for them, wood is a precious commodity, like a processed good, like minerals, diamonds, gold, cotton etc. 
This is why they do not cook with fires. Because they do not have easy access to fires. DUH!

It is today that fire is mostly ceremonial. Otherwise inuit used the seal-blubber or the whale-blubber to not only cook their non meat food (tubers and stems) but also even to heat their houses. 

And the main reason is that which above I presented, which consist of Inuit own witness that they eat meat raw, while they believe that eating it raw heals them. 

 

Quote

 

Then you are 100% an idiot. 
Gene manipulated vegetables are exactly the same as organic vegetables that have been 'gene manipulated' through the centuries.

This is why you CANNOT eat wild corn but can eat the corn we do. Or wild potato but eat the potato we do. Only difference is, thanks to genetic engineering, we can gene manipulate the desired result (larger yield, quicker maturation times, pest resistance etc) in a single month in a lab, which took our ancestors thousands and thousands of years to do, due to primitive, selective breeding practices.

 

This is pretty easily evidenced by the scientific papers on GMO foods. Now i expect you to bring up conspiracy theories of 'bullshit scientists that are on payroll of Soylent Green' and stuff. Too bad, because i am an educated engineer and i have an account on Jstor. Meaning, i have these actual scientific studies and data on my fingertips (too bad its a paid site, so i cannot link it to you here) and i don't need a crackpot unqualified idiot (thats what the anti-GMO crowd are) telling me what is scientifically valid and what is fudged, once i have the paper in hand. 

 

Thanks brother for calling me idiot. 

Gene manipulated and gene modified non organic vegetables are no where near the organic grown vegetables, who have up to 69% more nutritional value. They may be safe to consume, but nutritionally they are inferior. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/organic-food-more-antioxidants-study

 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Alam_dar

[MechEng]

At first I kept a track of the discussion here, but then it's got so complicated that forget it. Arrey khaane ko lekar itna kyun sochna?

[MechEng]

11 hours ago, maniac said:

Forget all this spirituality, religious and animal rights bs....simple a vegetarian lifestyle is a healthy choice.

 

Now sure there are a lot of unhealthy ways you can eat vegetarian dishes as well.

 

However I call bs on people saying that you need meat to be athletic etc because there are plenty of ways to get protein from veggie dishes eg,daal etc.

 

There is a reason why prostate health after 40 is a big deal in the West compared to India because red meat fks up your intenstines.

 

I would say apples to apples vegetarian diet is healthier than non vegetarian diet....I say apples to apples because obviously if you show me a vegetarian who consumes 4-5 ghee parathas and 10 gulab jamuns vs a guy who eats maybe salmon and grilled chicken in small quantities obviously the comparison won’t work.

 

but if you have the same benchmark  in healthy and unhealthy between  veg and non veg...Sure a vegetarian diet would be considered healthier.

There are plenty of UFC fighters who are into vegan/vegetarian diet, and I believe that MMA fighting can be more physically demanding than fast bowling.

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I wonder if you don't know that organ like liver is a super food? 

Didn't we talk about the chemical changes and toxins that are created by cooking? Your answer was you don't care. It was not a scientific answer. 

Regarding healing effects of raw liver, didn't I present you the FDA approved capsules of raw liver and people using them and healing their illnesses?

FDA approved food doesn't make it a medical reality. FDA is predominantly in the business of making sure food is safe. Not whether miracle cure food is miracle cure. FYI, FDA does *not* give your liver capsules medical approval. Ie, you can sell it, but just like its illegal to 'prescribe a sprig of Thyme as a medical cure',  its also illegal to prescribe your liver pills as medicine. its not medicine.

 

 

FYI, the reason i don't care, is very simple. I want scientific paper or your claim is bullshit. Just like religion. You said you are an atheist, you should get on with the program of atheism and stop believing in stuff without evidence. Evidence relevant here, to support your claim, is scientific evidence.

 

FYI, This paper should demonstrate, what scientific papers look like :

 

https://thericejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12284-016-0087-4

 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Do you know the famous nutritionist Dr. Weston Price? He stated that many cultures that make use of organ meat as a regular part of  their diets lived free from many of the chronic illness that plague so many Americans. Dr. Price also points out that in the animal kingdom a predator will instinctively go for the organ meat because it is such a powerhouse of nutrition. 

Dr. Price is saying BS. I've had plenty of pet cats over the time, to know that when a cat hunts, it usually eats the breast meat first in its first sitting, then finishes off whatever is left in the next sitting. Same with most predatory animals. Lions and tigers eat the shanks of Impalas first, then everything else. Nobody burrows a hole for the organs first. Obviously, they do eat organs, as why waste a good hunt. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/food-features/the-liver-files/

So what makes liver so wonderful? Quite simply, it contains more nutrients, gram for gram, than any other food. In summary, liver provides:

• An excellent source of high-quality protein
• Nature’s most concentrated source of vitamin A
• All the B vitamins in abundance, particularly vitamin B12
• One of our best sources of folic acid
• A highly usable form of iron
• Trace elements such as copper, zinc and chromium; liver is our best source of copper
• An unidentified anti-fatigue factor
• CoQ10, a nutrient that is especially important for cardio-vascular function
• A good source of purines, nitrogen-containing compounds that serve as precursors for DNA and RNA.

 

What else scientific proof you need? It is not a medicine, it is a food. And therefore results is studied on the people who use it (it is the scientific approach). People are heavily reporting the following benefits:

This is nothing more than marketing. not science. People trying to sell their product making bullshit claims. Oh so surprised !! They come with testimonials too!! Just like Palmist and psychic stores !! Woo !!

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

You said that some of Ayurveda medicines have been scientifically verified. How? Science only told which components they have. Similarly science has told which components are found in the liver.

Science has proven *some* of the remedies of Ayurveda to work, based on clinical studies of the said remedies. Show us clinical studies of your wonder liver pill or accept the fact that its nothing more than bullshit marketing. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Afterwards, scientific approach was to ask the people to use Ayurveda medicines and take their witness as result. 

Same technique is applied here when liver is used by the people, and then their witnesses is present as result, but you are denying it in this case. 

Don't make bullshit up as you go. Science has proven *some* of Ayurvedic remedies work, on the basis of clinical tests. Not because of testimonials and theory. You sound like a person who knows jack $hit about science. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Show me the witnesses of people who used the "cooked" liver and level of healing they had?

I will show you 'level' of healing, right after you show me 'healing' in an empirically proven fact. Numbers, data. Not bullshit words of a marketing campaign. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

As compared to cooked liver, there are many folds more witnesses about the raw liver healing effects. So much more that raw liver has been used for making of capsules today in whole American, Canada, Europe, Australia everywhere. Nobody is using the cooked liver for this purpose. 

Witnesses ? Shouldn't be that hard to prove that it works, like millions of drugs and dozens of remedies via clinical studies. Where are your clinical studies ? Science does not care about witnesses when it comes to compositional analysis and its effects. It cares only about lab verified results. Where are yours ?

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

No brother, I didn't miss.

But it seems you missed that I dealt in details with parasites from your own next Link. 

You didn't deal with it at all, as my links VERY CLEARLY shows that parasites are common in many fish, which are *not* farmed. Ergo, eating any and all raw fish = harmful. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Your conjecture of all year Snow is wrong. In summer, the temperature rise up to +25 degree Celsius.

Permafrost. you know what that means ? It means THE GROUND is frozen PERMANENTLY. Ie, dig a hole and you got your year round freezer. Does not matter what the air temperature is. Learn your bloody geography !! 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Even in the winters, they are eating freshly caught fish and other animals who are not frozen, but their body is still warm and they are taking blood out of them and the organs too at the spot. 

Not all are, and those who are, are propagating a poor health practice, out of necessity of lacking cheap fire. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid you have no idea about the "Matjes (raw herring)"  of Europe. 

Matjes is made only from Herring which is caught during the month of Mai to July (it is the time when they have the maximum fat content). Therefore, in the earlier centuries, Herring was never ever frozen before it was consumed as Matjes.  You can read about it here. 

https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/holland-stories/dutch-food-and-cuisine/taste-the-season-hollandse-nieuwe-herring.htm

Yes. 1 type of fish. or 2 or maybe 5. you seem to forget that there are MILLIONS of types of fish and if you can only eat half a dozen or so of them raw, it means YOU CANNOT EAT 99.9% OF FISH RAW. So giving a few exception scenario examples mean jack $hit. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Here is the List of 16 more raw meat dishes, which are eaten for centuries in different parts of the world. 

https://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/15-raw-meat-dishes-from-around-the-world 

 

15 type of dishes, that comes from only 3 animals : beef, buffalo and pork. Again, refer to the above point. you cannot eat 99.9% of land animals raw without catching viruses/bacterial infections and parasites. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I wrote about it earlier. 

 

 

Unfair. 

Did I ask the people to believe me?

No, I asked them to read and experience it themselves. 

Religious people say they prayed and then they met god. But normal people when pray, they never meet god. 

But in this case, it is not asked to believe us, but to believe themselves by personal experience.

Are you able to see the difference?

Religious people also say 'experience the lord and you will know' and just like you, they say 'well you fail at experiencing it' when someone asks for data and evidence and trashes your bullshit experience. I eat Kitfo. I usually end up with belly-ache after. Same reason why i eat my steak medium rare and not blue-rare. So your experience contradicts mine. 
This is why, unlike you, i don't go by bullshit personal experience of a few idiots here and there, but SCIENTIFIC PROOF. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Regarding compounds, then science has already told which compounds are found in organs and fish. Afterwards scientific study also rely on the witnesses of the people who use that thing. 

And you are yet to show any clinical 'healing effect' quantifiable by a single scientific study. Ephedra plant has been CLINCALLY proven to be a metabolic stimulant, helping things like asthma. Show us CLINCAL studies or take your bullcrap propaganda elsewhere. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Cooked food without "salt" and without "herbs" has awful taste, like all other cooked vegetables. 

While only raw meat and even raw vegetables and raw green herbs has the complete taste. 

Nope. Disagree. Cooked unsalted meat tastes better than raw uncooked meat, for all meat except beef. Lamb tastes better just boiled than raw. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't think that our Paleo ancestors had any access to the salt (only in rare cases perhaps they were able to get hands to salt). 

Bullshit. Most of humanity has ALWAYS lived within 100 miles of the coast. Coast is where you find salt as you just dig a hole and let the water evaporate in that hole. Done. Salt. Salt has been with us for over 150,000 years in most coastal communities. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Give toddler cooked meat without salt and raw meat without salt, and you will see in 100% cases toddler will choose the raw meat. 

Bullshit. I've never seen a toddler pick sushi over cooked fish and i am a Bong who loves fish and Sushi. Also a parent. And not just my toddler. So take your bullshit idea elsewhere. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is today that fire is mostly ceremonial. Otherwise inuit used the seal-blubber or the whale-blubber to not only cook their non meat food (tubers and stems) but also even to heat their houses. 

Bullshit. Whale-blubber and seal-blubber has NOT been used as common source of cooking fire, simply because whale blubber and seal blubber is still WAY MORE EXPENSIVE to acquire (even without currency, as in price of things), than compared to firewood. hence natives don't cook much. 
Find me a tribe- anywhere- that has ready access to firewood and mostly eats raw meat. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And the main reason is that which above I presented, which consist of Inuit own witness that they eat meat raw, while they believe that eating it raw heals them. 

They can believe whatever bullcrap they want. Its their religion. Show us evidence or stop peddling beliefs as fact. your poor marketing advertisements are not scientific evidence, they are just evidence of poorly reasoned fads. 

Oh and another thing. I've been in Canada for nearly 30 years. I've gone to Kluane national park multiple times, have been to Iqaaluit. So take your bullcrap about why natives don't use fire, elsewhere. Most natives don't traditionally use fire because of lack of wood and scarcity of whale & seal blubber compared to wood. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Thanks brother for calling me idiot. 

If you act like one, you will be called one. I have stated multiple times, what is evidence and just because you have a religion of paleo-diet, doesnt mean it is a fact. And anyone who tries to pass off anecdotal personal evidence as fact, without setting control for placebo effect, is speaking bullshit. Any scientist will tell you this, if you try to claim anecdote = scientific evidence. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Gene manipulated and gene modified non organic vegetables are no where near the organic grown vegetables, who have up to 69% more nutritional value. They may be safe to consume, but nutritionally they are inferior. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/organic-food-more-antioxidants-study

 

Give us calorific comparison of these gene modified vegetables and organic grown vegetables, along with their respective carbs, proteins and vitamins load. 

Not all gene manipulated veggies are boosted grown, not all organic foods are grown at natural pace. Boosted grown comes from greenhouse effect & 'ultra-soil' effect, not due to gene-manipulation itself (though SOME veggies are gene manipulated to ripen faster, in SOME of their gene-modified stuff). 

 

[Alam_dar]

mortality rates in an Inuit population from 1822-1836.

Mortality and Lifespan of the Inuit

 

One of the classic counter-arguments that's used to discredit accounts of healthy hunter-gatherers is the fallacy that they were short-lived, and thus did not have time to develop diseases of old age like cancer. While the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was not as high as ours today, most groups had a significant number of elderly individuals, who sometimes lived to 80 years and beyond. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

I found a a mortality table from the records of a Russian mission in Alaska (compiled by Veniaminov, taken from Cancer, Disease of Civilization), which recorded the ages of death of a traditionally-living Inuit population during the years 1822 to 1836. Here's a plot of the raw data:

Here's the data re-plotted in another way. I changed the "bin size" of the bars to 10 year spans each (rather than the bins above, which vary from 3 to 20 years). This allows us to get a better picture of the number of deaths over time. I took some liberties with the data to do this, breaking up a large bin equally into two smaller bins. I also left out the infant mortality data, which are interesting but not relevant to this post: 


Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years. It's possible that life expectancy would have been higher before contact with the Russians, since they introduced a number of nasty diseases to which the Inuit were not resistant. Keep in mind that the Westerners who were developing cancer alongside them probably had a similar life expectancy at the time. Here's the data plotted in yet another way, showing the number of individuals surviving at each age, out of the total deaths recorded:


It's remarkably linear. Here's the percent chance of death at each age:

Link: Whole Health Source

 

==============================

 

So, before contact with the Western people and western Diet, Inuit were free of western diseases like cancer and others. 

Moreover, we have to take in consideration that:

(1) Arctic conditions are absolutely not suitable to human life.

There  are no green lettuce or green wild herbs.

There is almost no sun shine.

There are almost no nuts. 

There are almost no Fruits (lemons etc.), especially in winter. 

 

In these extreme severe conditions, Inuit would have not survived without the use of raw meat. 

All inuits are unanimous that raw meat provide them with high body heat, through which they survive the extreme cold weather. 

 

Temperature in Arctic is -50 degrees in winter, some what similar to Siachen Glacier where Indo Pak war is taking place. Just watch the soldiers there, how badly they are surviving in that climate despite having much much better facilities than the Inuits. 

 

Today, the inuit newer generation is eating almost complete western diet, except for occasionally raw meat from hunting, but despite the similar diet, still due to severe climate, their average age is 10 to 15 years lower than normal age of Canada. 

 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

@Muloghonto

Quote

Religious people also say 'experience the lord and you will know' and just like you,

Brother, you see you also invite the Vegetarians to experience the meat themselves.

There is no other way than inviting people to experience things themselves. This basic rule does not becomes invalid while some wrong people also use it, while final results automatically tell who is telling the truth and who is telling a lie. 

 

Quote

I eat Kitfo. I usually end up with belly-ache after. Same reason why i eat my steak medium rare and not blue-rare. So your experience contradicts mine.

It's ok. I accept your witness that you have problems with Kitfo. 

But what if some people are comfortable with it and find it healing? Would you deny their witness about themselves?

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

Scientific Paper: Raw Diet vs. Kibble Diet in pets

 

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/Research Paper - Raw Diet v Kibble Diet .pdf

 

Abstract: 

Dogs became domesticated thousands of years ago. A dogs ancestral history traces back to wolves with a less than 2% difference in their DNA. Dogs are carnivores with the same digestive physiology as their ancestors. Approximately 60 years ago, dogs diets consisted of scraps, carcasses, and what they killed on their own. When commercial dog food appeared on the market people found it easy to scoop out a portion of kibble and pour it into a bowl. They were told by veterinarians that it was balanced and nutritious for their dogs or pets. As the pet food industry exploded, so did health issues in dogs. The ingredients used by the pet food industry is basically waste from the human food industry (Martin, 2008). As people are becoming more aware of the dangers of commercially processed dry kibble, they are turning to other alternatives. Raw food, which is a species specific diet, has many benefits and has shown to promote health in dogs including healthy teeth (Lonsdale, 2001). Consuming whole live fresh food for all animals, including humans, is what nature intended it to be.

...

 

The Problem with High Cooking Temperatures of Pet Food:

 

All pet food is heated and cooked to eliminate micro-organisms. Foods that are susceptible to high heat and cooking are destroyed, while most ingredients are damaged (Better Health Channel, 2011). Because most vitamins and minerals are destroyed they need to be added back in (Animal Protection Institute, 2004). A study done by the Animal Nutrition Group on the effects of high temperatures on nutrients showed that 4mm kibble dryed at 200 degrees lowered proline, total lysine, reactive lysine concentrations, linolenic and linoleic acid concentrations, and increased oleic acid (Animal Nutrition Group, 2011). The cooking process changes the molecular structure of ingredients making it more indigestible and the dogs immune system sees these as foreign, thus their immune system attacks them (Billinghurst, 1993). processed dry dog food contains very little moisture, about 10%, and is dehydrating to dogs (Becker, 2012).

 

 

Health Issues Caused by Processed Pet Food

Illnesses and disease have risen dramatically that are directly or indirectly caused by diet such as periodontal disease, obesity, chronic digestive problems, kidney disease, allergies, cancer and many more (Bowen, 2010). Allergies - the rate of incidences of food sensitivity in dogs is on the rise due to poor quality and biologically inappropriate ingredients. Most of the blame falls on proteins (Becker, 2011). However, the use of animal feed grade grains, high in carbohydrates and a poor source of protein, causes allergies, also...

 

 

Why Feed a Raw Food Diet?

A raw food diet consists of all the vitamins and minerals in their natural form, thousands of different enzymes, and a full range of antioxidants. Studies have shown that nutrients from whole fresh food protects against many illnesses while the same nutrients in pill form show no more effectiveness than the placebos. Enzymes regulate most biological processes that are chemical reactions in the body. They catalyze all cell metabolism including digestion. The cooking of food forces the stomach, pancreas, and small intestine to produce these digestive enzymes that naturally come from raw food (Brown and Taylor, n.d.).

 

 

Benefits of Feeding a Raw Diet

The key to the benefits of a raw food diet is "life energy". Food that is whole, fresh, and uncooked helps the body fend off aging, improve cell oxygenation, metabolism, and renewal, helps fight off diseases, and are easily digested (Pitcairn and Pitcairn, 1982).

 

Fecal volume is 1/5 that from dogs on dry kibble. The feces doesn't stink and will turn white and powdery and disappear. Dogs have clean, healthy white teeth and have no need for cleanings by a veterinarian. Obesity is non-existent with weight being easily controlled (Lonsdale, 2001).

 

Energy levels are higher. Coats are silky, healthy, and shiny (Lee, 2012).

 

Raw food contains 75-80% water, which is vital for proper digestion and could possibly decrease the risk of bloat and calcium oxalate bladder stones (Brown and Taylor, n.d.).

 

Read Complete Paper at:

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/Research Paper - Raw Diet v Kibble Diet .pdf

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, MechEng said:

At first I kept a track of the discussion here, but then it's got so complicated that forget it. Arrey khaane ko lekar itna kyun sochna?

I am sorry for the complication. It was not intended. 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Scientific Paper: Raw Diet vs. Kibble Diet in pets

 

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/Research Paper - Raw Diet v Kibble Diet .pdf

 

Abstract: 

Dogs became domesticated thousands of years ago. A dogs ancestral history traces back to wolves with a less than 2% difference in their DNA. Dogs are carnivores with the same digestive physiology as their ancestors. Approximately 60 years ago, dogs diets consisted of scraps, carcasses, and what they killed on their own. When commercial dog food appeared on the market people found it easy to scoop out a portion of kibble and pour it into a bowl. They were told by veterinarians that it was balanced and nutritious for their dogs or pets. As the pet food industry exploded, so did health issues in dogs. The ingredients used by the pet food industry is basically waste from the human food industry (Martin, 2008). As people are becoming more aware of the dangers of commercially processed dry kibble, they are turning to other alternatives. Raw food, which is a species specific diet, has many benefits and has shown to promote health in dogs including healthy teeth (Lonsdale, 2001). Consuming whole live fresh food for all animals, including humans, is what nature intended it to be.

...

 

The Problem with High Cooking Temperatures of Pet Food:

 

All pet food is heated and cooked to eliminate micro-organisms. Foods that are susceptible to high heat and cooking are destroyed, while most ingredients are damaged (Better Health Channel, 2011). Because most vitamins and minerals are destroyed they need to be added back in (Animal Protection Institute, 2004). A study done by the Animal Nutrition Group on the effects of high temperatures on nutrients showed that 4mm kibble dryed at 200 degrees lowered proline, total lysine, reactive lysine concentrations, linolenic and linoleic acid concentrations, and increased oleic acid (Animal Nutrition Group, 2011). The cooking process changes the molecular structure of ingredients making it more indigestible and the dogs immune system sees these as foreign, thus their immune system attacks them (Billinghurst, 1993). processed dry dog food contains very little moisture, about 10%, and is dehydrating to dogs (Becker, 2012).

 

 

Health Issues Caused by Processed Pet Food

Illnesses and disease have risen dramatically that are directly or indirectly caused by diet such as periodontal disease, obesity, chronic digestive problems, kidney disease, allergies, cancer and many more (Bowen, 2010). Allergies - the rate of incidences of food sensitivity in dogs is on the rise due to poor quality and biologically inappropriate ingredients. Most of the blame falls on proteins (Becker, 2011). However, the use of animal feed grade grains, high in carbohydrates and a poor source of protein, causes allergies, also...

 

 

Why Feed a Raw Food Diet?

A raw food diet consists of all the vitamins and minerals in their natural form, thousands of different enzymes, and a full range of antioxidants. Studies have shown that nutrients from whole fresh food protects against many illnesses while the same nutrients in pill form show no more effectiveness than the placebos. Enzymes regulate most biological processes that are chemical reactions in the body. They catalyze all cell metabolism including digestion. The cooking of food forces the stomach, pancreas, and small intestine to produce these digestive enzymes that naturally come from raw food (Brown and Taylor, n.d.).

 

 

Benefits of Feeding a Raw Diet

The key to the benefits of a raw food diet is "life energy". Food that is whole, fresh, and uncooked helps the body fend off aging, improve cell oxygenation, metabolism, and renewal, helps fight off diseases, and are easily digested (Pitcairn and Pitcairn, 1982).

 

Fecal volume is 1/5 that from dogs on dry kibble. The feces doesn't stink and will turn white and powdery and disappear. Dogs have clean, healthy white teeth and have no need for cleanings by a veterinarian. Obesity is non-existent with weight being easily controlled (Lonsdale, 2001).

 

Energy levels are higher. Coats are silky, healthy, and shiny (Lee, 2012).

 

Raw food contains 75-80% water, which is vital for proper digestion and could possibly decrease the risk of bloat and calcium oxalate bladder stones (Brown and Taylor, n.d.).

 

Read Complete Paper at:

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/Research Paper - Raw Diet v Kibble Diet .pdf

 This entire paper is on PET FOOD. Ie, what dogs can/cannot eat. Dogs have different digestive physiology and immunology than humans. Show us a scientific paper on raw food for species homo sapiens. 

Dogs evolved from wolves and thus, raw diet is suitable for them. Species homo sapiens evolved with the continuous presence of cooking fire. 

 

Also show us a scientific paper about your claim about healing power of raw food. 

 

Quote

 Consuming whole live fresh food for all animals, including humans, is what nature intended it to be.

 

This is neither cited, nor evidenced. Hence, just an opinion of the researcher. As i said, you can keep your crooked scam-job opinions to yourself. 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

@Muloghonto

Brother, you see you also invite the Vegetarians to experience the meat themselves.

There is no other way than inviting people to experience things themselves. This basic rule does not becomes invalid while some wrong people also use it, while final results automatically tell who is telling the truth and who is telling a lie. 

And i experienced it different. Hence your experience vs my experience is a scientific evidential deadlock without control for placebo effect. The basic rule of validity is, if you are claiming something to be true, show scientific proof. You've singularly failed at that. 

 

Quote

 

It's ok. I accept your witness that you have problems with Kitfo. 

But what if some people are comfortable with it and find it healing? Would you deny their witness about themselves?

 

Some people find prayers as healing too. Doesn't change the fact that if you cannot evidence the healing effect, its bullshit ideology with ZERO proof to it. I would give as much credibility to their witness of healing, as i would give a pentecostal christian to've been 'healed of demons' from their priest. Without evidence, they are both exactly equal psychosomatic placebo effect bullshit claim. Exactly equal.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

mortality rates in an Inuit population from 1822-1836.

Mortality and Lifespan of the Inuit

 

One of the classic counter-arguments that's used to discredit accounts of healthy hunter-gatherers is the fallacy that they were short-lived, and thus did not have time to develop diseases of old age like cancer. While the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was not as high as ours today, most groups had a significant number of elderly individuals, who sometimes lived to 80 years and beyond. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

I found a a mortality table from the records of a Russian mission in Alaska (compiled by Veniaminov, taken from Cancer, Disease of Civilization), which recorded the ages of death of a traditionally-living Inuit population during the years 1822 to 1836. Here's a plot of the raw data:

Here's the data re-plotted in another way. I changed the "bin size" of the bars to 10 year spans each (rather than the bins above, which vary from 3 to 20 years). This allows us to get a better picture of the number of deaths over time. I took some liberties with the data to do this, breaking up a large bin equally into two smaller bins. I also left out the infant mortality data, which are interesting but not relevant to this post: 


Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years. It's possible that life expectancy would have been higher before contact with the Russians, since they introduced a number of nasty diseases to which the Inuit were not resistant. Keep in mind that the Westerners who were developing cancer alongside them probably had a similar life expectancy at the time. Here's the data plotted in yet another way, showing the number of individuals surviving at each age, out of the total deaths recorded:


It's remarkably linear. Here's the percent chance of death at each age:

Link:So, before contact with the Western people and western Diet, Inuit were free of western diseases like cancer and others. 

Moreover, we have to take in consideration that:

(1) Arctic conditions are absolutely not suitable to human life.

There  are no green lettuce or green wild herbs.

There is almost no sun shine.

There are almost no nuts. 

There are almost no Fruits (lemons etc.), especially in winter. 

 

In these extreme severe conditions, Inuit would have not survived without the use of raw meat. 

All inuits are unanimous that raw meat provide them with high body heat, through which they survive the extreme cold weather. 

 

Temperature in Arctic is -50 degrees in winter, some what similar to Siachen Glacier where Indo Pak war is taking place. Just watch the soldiers there, how badly they are surviving in that climate despite having much much better facilities than the Inuits. 

 

Today, the inuit newer generation is eating almost complete western diet, except for occasionally raw meat from hunting, but despite the similar diet, still due to severe climate, their average age is 10 to 15 years lower than normal age of Canada. 

 

 

 

This is marketing 101. Bullshit ideas and conclusions. " Inuits didnt have cancer before contact with the western diet' ?! 
Evidence for such a claim, please. Just linear death data means ZILCH for cancer,  since almost 50% of cancer patients are diagnosed AFTER the age of 70. Inuits, as the data show, hardly ever made it to that age as a society, compared to the superior standard diet, where MOST PEOPLE live to 70+ (hence AVERAGE life expectancy in the west is 70+). 

your argument towards Inuits eating raw meat shows PRECISELY WHY near-exclusive raw meat diet is an EXCEPTIONAL condition scenario, in humans. It is practiced by people who lack ready access to firewood, to vegetables & legumes and such, to nuts, fruits and berries. 
Above all, lacking an easy access to fire is the main difference, as we DO NOT see raw meat eating as a prevalent diet in South-eastern Siberia(it has a little part in fine dining and legacy cuisines) : there has been no farming amongst the Baykal peoples and such, till recent history and even then, it is extremely limited due to Baykal climate. Yet, these people, also lacking vegetables, grains and pulses , as well as most fruits, survive traditionally almost exclusively on reindeer meat and reindeer milk. Yet, they live round forests. So they almost exclusively eat cooked reindeer( again, some fine dining/special occasions cuisine is exception to the rule). 

 

So they cook their meat, as chopping down a forest is WAY easier, cheaper and cost effective than finding a seal/whale, bashing it over the head/sticking it with a harpoon, then processing it, then drying the blubber, then setting it on fire.

It takes hours/whole day to sometimes find a seal and kill them. Some days there are no seals or all the seals have found a flat iceberg and gathered there, a kilometre from the coast. Then you got to go into your boat, paddle for an hour, go bash seals, then you can carry only 5 seals at a time with your boat. 

All this time, you will find enough seal blubber to have a lamp-size fire for a few days. 1 whole days effort, for firing a lamp in your igloo for a few days. 

So thats seals. Whales : ok, so you go out, kill a whale once every month at best. Sure, whale has enough blubber to last YOU for months, but you can't kill a whale by yourself, you are gonna need buddies to do it (and Inuits are *not* good whalers). So they will take their share and you end up with enough blubber to burn a lamp for a few weeks in each igloo. 

Contrast this to living in access of trees (forests). I live in Canada, where there are trees practically everywhere (where most people live, that is). I am not a big and strong guy, i am a skinny guy with stamina of normal Indian height. I can and i have chopped enough wood in 4 hours to make a raging fire where whole FAMILIES can gather around and the fire will burn for the whole day and night and still have enough to start a fire tomorrow. If i was a super-fit guy, who can chop wood for the whole day from dusk to dawn with just a few breaks in between , i would have enough wood to fill up two normal desi trucks. 

Thats the difference. "Hey look, people who have ZERO access to anything except moss, lichen and sedge bush, and only have access to blubber, which they need to melt the inside of their igloo to make it inhabitable anyways, have adapted to eating raw meat". 
No, really ?!? So surprising !!!

 

You raw meat = healing/raw meat = natural diet, first need to find people who have ready access to wood and STILL prefer to eat their meat raw. But you won't, because such straightforward thinking will show u how much BS the 'paleo-raw diet was how it was originally' as a concept is. Its 100% BS lie. Whether raw meat is healthier or not (and it is not. It CAN be more nutritious, but it IS more dangerous. Period), is irrelevant to the fact that our evolutionary history shows us to be predominantly a cooked meat eating species. FOR ALL OF OUR SPECIES EXISTENCE WE KNOW OF. 

 

[Alam_dar]

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

where is clinical study?

I tried to search and find out and clinical study where results of raw food vs cooked food was given to a group of people and results were studied. 

I am unable to find any. 

 

Do you know of ANY of such clinical study? Or they are really absent?

 

Nevertheless, I found this accusation against the food industry, that they are mighty and not letting such studies about raw food take place. 

 

//

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/Research Paper - Raw Diet v Kibble Diet .pdf

 

The Controversy with Raw Food:

 

It has been implied that there is no scientific research or data that supports the benefits of a raw diet, therefore, according to the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA), a raw food diet shouldn't be fed.

However, there is no scientific research or evidence that commercial processed kibble is good for your pets. According to Keuhn (2007), "the only research that has been done is to see if dogs could be fed a grain diet, if dogs could survive acceptably on these processed foods, if X brand of food can do such and such for the dog with health issues, and if X brand is better; more palatable, better liked, less stool volume, etc., than Y brand of food." No research has been done to determine if dry food is actually healthy for your dog, only an assumption based on a 6 month feeding trial." The scientific community dismisses the evidence that raw food is healthy and beneficial, calling it anecdotal, yet their justification against raw food is just as anecdotal. Why is there no scientific studies on raw food diets? Could the research be damning against the pet food industry? If feeding a raw food diet is as bad as scientists, veterinarians, and the pet food industry says it is, than why isn't there any research to back that up? If it was proven that a raw food diet is healthier and processed foods have created all the increased health issues, a multi-billion dollar industry would collapse, millions of people would be out of work, and there would be no outlet for disposing of waste from the human food industry (Kuehn, 2007).

 

//

 

Do you believe in this accusation?

If not, then where are such studies in humans about raw food?

Could you present any Scientific Study which denies the health benefits of the raw food? 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I tried to search and find out and clinical study where results of raw food vs cooked food was given to a group of people and results were studied. 

I am unable to find any. 

 

Do you know of ANY of such clinical study? Or they are really absent?

 

Nevertheless, I found this accusation against the food industry, that they are mighty and not letting such studies about raw food take place. 

 

//

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/Research Paper - Raw Diet v Kibble Diet .pdf

 

The Controversy with Raw Food:

 

It has been implied that there is no scientific research or data that supports the benefits of a raw diet, therefore, according to the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA), a raw food diet shouldn't be fed.

However, there is no scientific research or evidence that commercial processed kibble is good for your pets. According to Keuhn (2007), "the only research that has been done is to see if dogs could be fed a grain diet, if dogs could survive acceptably on these processed foods, if X brand of food can do such and such for the dog with health issues, and if X brand is better; more palatable, better liked, less stool volume, etc., than Y brand of food." No research has been done to determine if dry food is actually healthy for your dog, only an assumption based on a 6 month feeding trial." The scientific community dismisses the evidence that raw food is healthy and beneficial, calling it anecdotal, yet their justification against raw food is just as anecdotal. Why is there no scientific studies on raw food diets? Could the research be damning against the pet food industry? If feeding a raw food diet is as bad as scientists, veterinarians, and the pet food industry says it is, than why isn't there any research to back that up? If it was proven that a raw food diet is healthier and processed foods have created all the increased health issues, a multi-billion dollar industry would collapse, millions of people would be out of work, and there would be no outlet for disposing of waste from the human food industry (Kuehn, 2007).

 

//

 

Do you believe in this accusation?

If not, then where are such studies in humans about raw food?

Could you present any Scientific Study which denies the health benefits of the raw food? 

No, i don't believe the said accusation. For two simple reasons:

 

1. The science behind proving safety and nutrition value of a food product is fairly basic biochemistry. It could be part of a PhD thesis. Out of the thousands upon thousands of PhD thesis submitted yearly, you want to believe, that not a SINGLE student would want to get his/her name out there, to stand out, by doing ground-breaking research ? Pretty damn impossible. 

 

2. Oil industry is the most powerful industry out there, in terms of influence globally and they were not able to shut down the research on deleterious effects of oil when leaked into the oceans. If they couldn't suppress research on something that affects them, then the puny, laughable meat industry, who are also not a global oligarchical conglomerate, wouldn't be able to suppress said research.

 

Furthermore, there are PLENTY of science papers out there that show the dangers of raw meat. It *is* more dangerous for us to eat, meat raw, period. The risk of infection is far higher. This, is easily available on the net. If not, i suggest you pay up like $50 per year and get yourself a Jstor account. Jstor is a big resource to check thesis papers and there are tens of thousands of papers on all subjects stored there.