How our bodies are fooled.... - Page 2

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by JTA Mom

And that's all individual preference as well. There are fermented meat dishes. Think of fish sauce, hundred year old eggs, etc. Outside of those cultures, it's considered 'spoiled'. Depending on the culture, what is considered rotten and putrid is, to another culture, a delicacy.

But less energy=less calories. So having 'extra' energy means having more calories to use for other tasks.

The question to ask is if the less calories used outweighs the 'loss' in nutrition in cooking. Maybe the 'destruction' of enzymes and some vitamins is more than made up in the energy savings? In that case, it's evolutionarily advantageous to do that. Because more calories=more going to growth or fat padding or even to just use for running down extra food.

ETA: Bitterness is a better indicator of poison. But we still eat bitter things like dandelion.

Ami

I did type bitterness then edited it out, yes we eat dandelion, but it is generally know as a medicinal, so this is a learned perference, I doubt any primitive would choose to eat it over raw meat. Yes, fermented foods/ high meat are also a learned taste because over the generations people have come to understand the benefit of eating fermented foods because of the beneficial bacteria. Cooked food is basically dead food, which may be why it takes less energy to digest because they is nothing much to digest, hence more internal energy (I say internal because I certainly have more external energy when consuming raw animal foods).

Anyway, I don't really know why I am spending my time arguing this. I don't care to convince anyone of anything. I am perfectly happy with what I believe and aren't about to change my mind, so why should I expect anyone else to change their beliefs either.

[JTA Mom]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

I did type bitterness then edited it out, yes we eat dandelion, but it is generally know as a medicinal, so this is a learned perference, I doubt any primitive would choose to eat it over raw meat. Yes, fermented foods/ high meat are also a learned taste because over the generations people have come to understand the benefit of eating fermented foods because of the beneficial bacteria. Cooked food is basically dead food, which may be why it takes less energy to digest because they is nothing much to digest, hence more internal energy (I say internal because I certainly have more external energy when consuming raw animal foods).

Anyway, I don't really know why I am spending my time arguing this. I don't care to convince anyone of anything. I am perfectly happy with what I believe and aren't about to change my mind, so why should I expect anyone else to change their beliefs either.

Who is arguing? I thought this was a discussion? Different viewpoints have different backing arguments.

And primitive people do eat bitter foods--they eat tons of greens, for example. And wild foods are not known for their sweetness. Of course they would eat meat over vegetable matter. Calories, calories, calories. Ethnographic study after ethnographic study has come up with the same conclusions: Among 'non-arctic circle' hunters and gatherers, the 'bulk' of their food is plants, but the majority of their calories comes from meat. Meat has lots of minerals, fatty acids, etc. Lots of calories. Only in today's 'diet culture' would someone willingly choose a piece of lettuce over some steak.

As far as all cooked foods being 'dead' I think that's a blanket statement. First, how cooked are we talking about? Because a medium-rare piece of meat is different than a well done piece of meat which is different than the charcoal bricket lots of people think well-done is. I would not lump all three together.

Also, as it stands, all human groups use at least some cooking in their food preparation. If it really were that detrimental, it wouldn't be as widespread as it is.

Ami

[Grace and Granola]

Originally Posted by JTA Mom

I think it's simple. In evolutionary terms, we are geared towards wanting something tasting sweet, salty or fatty. Because those three items were necessary to our bodies. Sweet and fatty indicate a density of calories in the wild. Salt for electrolytes. Combining two or even all three makes the pull of certain foods irresistible.

Today, if you really look at the 'addictive' bad for us foods, it combines all three. That sugary cereal? Has a lot of salt in it and oils to get the 'cereal' crispy. Fast food, even the hamburgers, are loaded with sugar and salt.

Our bodies can taste these mixes, these 'triads' and BAM! It sends out a signal to eat more. How often in nature does sweet mix with fat and salt? To our bodies, that's nirvana. Perfection.

Even white bread--full of sugar, and if you look in the ingredient list, salt. Usually containing some fat too, but even if not, how many people love love love bread with butter? Or even margarine? It tells the body that there's fat, sugar and salt.

Commercial peanut butters are chock full of added salt and sugar. Hmmmm, wonder why?

If you look at traditional foods, even the 'basic' bowl of oatmeal/grain. It's usually salted a bit, and cooked in something fatty (milk, butter, etc). The oatmeal itself is chock full of 'sugar' albeit in a less processed form of white table sugar. But our bodies read it the same way.

Modern fruits and vegetables are actually a ton sweeter than what they used to be. Take a bite of an heirloom apple and you will see what I'm talking about. Modern carrots are super sweet. The wild form of celery is quite bitter, etc etc. Humans like sweet, so we breed for that. We like fat, so we breed for that. And then liberally salt everything.

Right now, we have the technology to refine foods into oblivion. They didn't back then. However, that doesn't mean that our ancestors weren't trying to combine foods into the perfect 'triad' though. There's a reason manufacturing sugar exploded so quickly that even the poorest people had access to a big amount of it within 200yrs of really exploiting sugar cane. Traditional 'heirloom' animal breeds, compared to today's animals, were porkers. There was a type of sheep produced that had a HUGE fat long tail--consisting entirely of pure fat. Back then, they couldn't make oil from corn or refine flour into oblivion. But the combinations of food (grain/sweet, fat, salt) goes back a long, long way.

ETA: And I think our bodies can sense a lack of minerals/vitamins in our foods. I believe it's a big reason for the obesity epidemic in regions of the world that eat lots of processed SAD diet. We keep getting the hunger signal, because our bodies are starving--for micronutrients.

Ami

Thank you for this post. It really makes alot of sense and it just really hit home for me!

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by JTA Mom

Who is arguing? I thought this was a discussion? Different viewpoints have different backing arguments.

And primitive people do eat bitter foods--they eat tons of greens, for example. And wild foods are not known for their sweetness. Of course they would eat meat over vegetable matter. Calories, calories, calories. Ethnographic study after ethnographic study has come up with the same conclusions: Among 'non-arctic circle' hunters and gatherers, the 'bulk' of their food is plants, but the majority of their calories comes from meat. Meat has lots of minerals, fatty acids, etc. Lots of calories. Only in today's 'diet culture' would someone willingly choose a piece of lettuce over some steak.

As far as all cooked foods being 'dead' I think that's a blanket statement. First, how cooked are we talking about? Because a medium-rare piece of meat is different than a well done piece of meat which is different than the charcoal bricket lots of people think well-done is. I would not lump all three together.

Also, as it stands, all human groups use at least some cooking in their food preparation. If it really were that detrimental, it wouldn't be as widespread as it is.

Ami

All cooked meat is denatured to some degree, yes rare is better than charred. I am not telling people to only eat their meat/fish/eggs raw unless they want to.

But I disagree that because cooked meat and eggs taste better than raw, it means that instinctively we have gone with the preferable choice. IMO choosing cooked food is a learned preference and that cooked meat/fish are not nutritionally and developmentally preferable to cooked, even though they might take less energy to digest.

[JTA Mom]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

All cooked meat is denatured to some degree, yes rare is better than charred. I am not telling people to only eat their meat/fish/eggs raw unless they want to.

But I disagree that because cooked meat and eggs taste better than raw, it means that instinctively we have gone with the preferable choice. IMO choosing cooked food is a learned preference and that cooked meat/fish are not nutritionally and developmentally preferable to cooked, even though they might take less energy to digest.

That's true, cooked food is a preference. Lots of people in the US think raw fish is disgusting, but sashimi is delicious, to me. I don't like raw meat because for me, it's too tough. But I prefer medium meat over well done. And smoked meats (which generally aren't cooked) are my biggest weakness! (by smoked, I mean the ones that need 'refrigeration' not the ones that are stable at room temp).

As for the nutrition, maybe that's the case. Cooking does kill parasites, and outside of places where it freezes for part of the year, the only real way of killing them. Maybe people learned to cook because, even though nutritionally it's not the best choice, it's the best choice from a health (free from parasites) perspective?

Of course, this is all conjecture. But there must be something to cooking if almost all cultures have those methods. If it were truly bad, like eating un-limed corn, those cultures would have 'disappeared' over time. Instead, cooking has stuck around. Right now, in the US, you can get raw meat and be pretty sure it doesn't have parasites. But that wasn't the case 50 years ago. Shoot, with industrial animal husbandry, I'm not sure it's still not the case today.

Ami

[AJP]

I think taste is probably a combination of learned preference and instinct. My observation and personal experience indicates learned preference is a very strong factor.

I feel my tastes have genuinely changed, and I'm not so sure you can alter things that are pure instinct. After many years of eating mostly whole, natural foods, when I taste something highly processed and filled with artificial additives it truly does not taste good to me. Not "this is bad for me so I shouldn't like it", but "I can't imagine choosing to eat this, it doesn't taste like food". I used to like those things, they tasted good to me. If it was purely instinct, I don't think my preferences could have changed so dramatically. I've observed the same thing among people that I know. I do think instinct plays a role, as in preferences for certain combinations of flavors, I just don't think it's necessarily stronger than learned/cultural preferences. Humans are so highly influenced by culture.

On the other hand, I suppose it could be argued that instinct is clouded by the unnatural effects of processed and additive-filled foods, and removing those things allows the instinct to express.

I don't think I have the patience right now to get into the cooked vs. raw thing, except to say that I believe humans evolved with cooking, there are merits to both cooked and raw foods, and balance is key.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by JTA Mom

That's true, cooked food is a preference. Lots of people in the US think raw fish is disgusting, but sashimi is delicious, to me. I don't like raw meat because for me, it's too tough. But I prefer medium meat over well done. And smoked meats (which generally aren't cooked) are my biggest weakness! (by smoked, I mean the ones that need 'refrigeration' not the ones that are stable at room temp).

As for the nutrition, maybe that's the case. Cooking does kill parasites, and outside of places where it freezes for part of the year, the only real way of killing them. Maybe people learned to cook because, even though nutritionally it's not the best choice, it's the best choice from a health (free from parasites) perspective?

Of course, this is all conjecture. But there must be something to cooking if almost all cultures have those methods. If it were truly bad, like eating un-limed corn, those cultures would have 'disappeared' over time. Instead, cooking has stuck around. Right now, in the US, you can get raw meat and be pretty sure it doesn't have parasites. But that wasn't the case 50 years ago. Shoot, with industrial animal husbandry, I'm not sure it's still not the case today.

Ami

Parasites are really not a problem when you are eating a diet comprising only raw meat. Parasites in raw meat will only take hold if they are needed, a healthy body will reject them. If you are on a raw meat diet and get parasites, it is because the body needs them to consume decaying/toxic tissue. Once this has been done they will go. I would never eat previously frozen meat raw. Better in this instance to eat it cooked.

My husband has deliberately, for health reasons, eaten high meat, ie meat that has been left to rot from weeks, which no doubt had parasites in it, to no detrimental effects.

[NoTiGG]

Preference is choice. Choice is not taste.. It exists above taste.. because your choice or preference is determined in part........ by your natural instinct of taste.

Just because you choose to eat something and you prefer it does not mean that it tastes better to you. Like you said about cooked food tasting better..... the taste for cooked food is there.. but your preference is for raw food. But not because of taste. But because there are other factors that are at work when you decide to eat something....... such as knowing how it will make you feel.

Ultimately we DO decide what we will eat not on taste alone but on preference... but taste is still an instinct.. that we rely upon to make our decision which is called our preference.

When your tastes change.. cravings develop for different things. It is not your instinct changing. Rather it is your instinct at work.. because automatically you crave what your body needs.. since it doesn't need the same thing all of the time.

The point of this thread was just to look at instances where the body is fooled... because if you assume that taste is there to help us decide what is healthy for us.. which is a reasonable assumption given how evolution works.. then it is just curious how this can seem to sometimes fail in certain instances.

I still think Weston Prices statement is the most accurate so far... we are attracted to foods that give power and heat. Ones that have the most positive net gain in energy.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

Preference is choice. Choice is not taste.. It exists above taste.. because your choice or preference is determined in part........ by your natural instinct of taste.

I am sorry but I really don't understand what you are getting at.

Just because you choose to eat something and you prefer it does not mean that it tastes better to you. Like you said about cooked food tasting better..... the taste for cooked food is there.. but your preference is for raw food. But not because of taste. But because there are other factors that are at work when you decide to eat something....... such as knowing how it will make you feel.

Yes, so?

Ultimately we DO decide what we will eat not on taste alone but on preference... but taste is still an instinct.. that we rely upon to make our decision which is called our preference.

I still can't agree with you that taste is instinct, it is a physical function, not an emotional reaction. You have an emotional reaction to taste but the actual physical process in not an instinct.

When your tastes change.. cravings develop for different things. It is not your instinct changing. Rather it is your instinct at work.. because automatically you crave what your body needs.. since it doesn't need the same thing all of the time.

What changes is your emotional reaction to the physical sensations of tastes. This is also where it gets murky because instinctive eaters often do not make good choices (even though they convince themselves that they do), they usually go for fruit and sweet things. This is because they have baggage, ie emotional ties to certain tastes. If you want to see what someone would eat if they didn't have the baggage, read this interesting paper written in the 1930s by Clara Davis, MD, Results of the Self-selection of Diets by Young Children

The point of this thread was just to look at instances where the body is fooled... because if you assume that taste is there to help us decide what is healthy for us.. which is a reasonable assumption given how evolution works.. then it is just curious how this can seem to sometimes fail in certain instances.

This is because we have long been spoiled.

[PreggieUBA2C]

I have skimmed some of the posts rather than reading straight through but read most of them.

I think part of what we are witnessing is evolution at work. What I mean is that we have evolved an ability to make food-like substances from real food sources that give us a refined but nutritionally deficient version of the foods we woud otherwise be consuming. That's been covered.

There are at least two possible outcomes to this situation. One is that the human species will select for bodies that withstand and become able to produce health with these 'foods'. The second is that the human species will select for bodies that are healthy, so those which have unfortunately self-selected for tricking the body into consuming 'foods' that cause illness will eventually be selcted out by those whose bodies remain healthy from consuming foods that contain the full spectrum of nutirents needed to maintian them in a state of health.

Taste, from an evolutionary perspective is selection. If the human species selects tastes that are to its detriment, then the results will follow, and I think they have largely. Defining taste as preference doesn't take any step at all- it's still a selection, and clearly there are variances, testifying to its use as a selection tool for the species. As others have shared, it is linked with the intellect and insitinct, and in many ways the combination of these attributes will determine our well-being in the context of food and taste.

I think this is also linked very strongly to our relationship with the earth. As a species, our treatment of our bodies and food sources has had a major impact on everything, and is not separate, so in considering the evolutionary potential for our selections, we have to consider the earth's tolerance of those. So saying, part of the evolutionary potential of eating non-food or nutrient deficient food which are a direct result of how we cultivate, harvest manufacture, and produce our foods, comes directly from micro and macro organisms outside our scope of control.

The other options that complement the options I listed would involve those systems and organisms.

We play with fire. We don't do anything outside of evolution, if evolution is true. If we select to our detriment, then we will experience that detriment as a species, at some point or points. It does not even matter (evolutionarily speaking)why we selected as we did, just that we did. It matters presently to us as intellectual and instinctual beings because we have the ability to choose otherwise, but selections made already are made and the results are part of our evolution.

As an aside, being a former raw foodie, I also agree that raw foods overall seem to have given me loads of energy, but over time, I did feel weak and lsitless and so did the rest of my family, BUT I was not eating meat except rarely. I have since found that denaturing meat through marinades of acidic ingredients leaves them raw, but not chewy or at all hard to digest.

Learned preference is only of interest to a study of human socialisation and behaviour and not much to do with evolutionary biology at its fundaments. Learned preference is still selection.

We made the processed foods that we now choose to consume (select). IMO, a progressive evolution would be one where the healthy select for real foods and don't continue the detriment of producing processed synthetic non-foods. I'm not making a judgment of anyone or wishing an end to anyone; from an evolutionary perspective, unless the human species selects for health (which doesn't come to us without proper nutrition), then we will be selecting for another species or set of species to take our place and do it right.


Neat discussion.

ETA: I think the reason why our bodies can be tricked is because before we started tricking them, they had no reason to select for bodies that can distinguish between real and fake food. That's the next stage and we can presently intellectually choose the real food, but our bodies are only partially adept at doing this without our intellects, as our population shows rather obviously. An intellectual awareness of the symptoms of consuming fake foods seems to be the key to recognising the deficit from those foods. I feel terrible if I eat white bread or pasta, but I didn't know that until I was older and able to intellectually assess the physical symptoms that followed eating it.

[rhiandmoi]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

Parasites are really not a problem when you are eating a diet comprising only raw meat. Parasites in raw meat will only take hold if they are needed, a healthy body will reject them. If you are on a raw meat diet and get parasites, it is because the body needs them to consume decaying/toxic tissue. Once this has been done they will go. I would never eat previously frozen meat raw. Better in this instance to eat it cooked.

My husband has deliberately, for health reasons, eaten high meat, ie meat that has been left to rot from weeks, which no doubt had parasites in it, to no detrimental effects.

I just wanted to say that this is completely not true. Parasites don't just magically get into meat, they have to be present or introduced, and a healthy body will not just reject parasites. Our ancient ancestors who had no choice but to eat a TF diet, including minimally cooked meat, suffered a great deal because of parasites food borne or otherwise.

[StrongBeliever]

Read the first few posts(totally intend to go back and read the rest, interesting stuff) and skimmed the rest of the thread. It's kind of complex, and also subjective. Personally, I say we need a balance. But I think also that there has been an important point completely absent from this thread(maybe I missed it, correct me if I'm wrong)... Aren't there chemicals naturally present in food that effect our brains in a way that make us want to eat more of them. NoTiGG at one point referenced a child preference for sugar over something else due to the fact that it is easy to assimilate, i.e. becomes energy faster. But aren't we forgetting that sugar also wreaks havoc with our bodies chemical make up causing the crazy desire to gorge on sugar? Like heroin or something... It is beyond instinct, it is chemistry. Which makes me think of the opiate like chemicals in milk products, for instance. Also(need to look it up, as I may be wrong) doesn't cooking or processing food alter the chemical make-up, making some of these "mind altering"(makes me laugh a little) chemicals come into or out of play?

I do believe that we do have, to some extent, an instinctual "taste" (both craving and the recognition of something good) for certain foods. All animals have it, and we are animals. A goat will choose to eat the appropriate herbs on pasture to cure itself of illness, and yet it will also quite literally eat itself to death on grain(probably even cookies if they were available) because it tastes scrumptious. And it all ties together, evolutionary hearkening as well as what is currently going on in our mouth when we eat something right now. Couple that with the hellaciously fast pace at which our diet and lifestyles have changed in comparison to the human time line, and maybe we are trying to evolve faster to keep up and things are getting wonky in the process. It's hard to tell. I vote for trusting my body. My BODY. Not my tongue. The whole shibang. If I listened to my tongue I'd be eating a pint of Ben and Jerry's Americone Dream and a bag of potato chips every day.

ETA: Read through the whole thing. And I think PreggieUBA2C said it with SELECTION. That's the clincher, for me at least, that ties together taste, instinct, evolution, choice... All that. I think everything we do effects our evolution. Very cliche, but I think of that Simpson's episode with Homer's time machine toaster. He does one little thing, and tons of things down the line are effected, to a degree. We start out at point A, but selections(choices dictated by taste, climate, intellect, culture whatever) along the way influence the make up of the people born at point Q, R and S ect. And there are a lot of varying combinations within all that. It's not static or predictable. And it's made all the more messy and harder to understand by the availability of food-like substances derived from or similar to actual food and how they effect us. And think also of how screwed up so many people's digestion is due to poor diet anyway. It goes farther than energy. It has to do with illness and discomfort from eating something that may be as benign as a piece of bread or a slice of cucumber. A whole can of worms. Like Preggie said, it doesn't matter WHY it matters WHAT, and furthermore matters WHAT WILL.

ETA one more thing... I think that every single post has contributed to the interest of the thread so far. I don't think any one person is completely wrong or completely right. There is too much variability in it all for that(IMO). But it sure is interesting and I just wanted to say that a little bit of everybody's comments struck home with me.

[LoMaH]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

I still think Weston Prices statement is the most accurate so far... we are attracted to foods that give power and heat. Ones that have the most positive net gain in energy.

He didn't make that statement.
Dr. Price blamed "modern civilization" (stores) and lack of wisdom for poor food choices, he didn't discuss what foods people are instinctively attracted or not attracted to AT ALL. No mention on whether they preferred these foods to others, just that they had no access and no knowledge to find more nutritious food.

His recommendations included both raw and cooked foods.

He stated that people eat anything that satisfies their hunger and provides them with a certain number of calories (for most 2-3,000 calories/day), regardless of whether the foods were high in minerals/vitamins or not.

[NoTiGG]

Originally Posted by LoMaH

He didn't make that statement.
Dr. Price blamed "modern civilization" (stores) and lack of wisdom for poor food choices, he didn't discuss what foods people are instinctively attracted or not attracted to AT ALL. No mention on whether they preferred these foods to others, just that they had no access and no knowledge to find more nutritious food.

His recommendations included both raw and cooked foods.

He stated that people eat anything that satisfies their hunger and provides them with a certain number of calories (for most 2-3,000 calories/day), regardless of whether the foods were high in minerals/vitamins or not.

Lets requote what you quoted

"*We have a sense of hunger which expresses itself as appetite and we eat until this is satisfied, but this only applies to the part of our food which produces power and heat.
We have almost no sense of hunger for the minerals and other chemicals and vitamins that are needed for building new and repairing old tissues.**
"

So we hunger for food........ we are attracted to food (same thing if you understand basic english) that gives power and heat. (Power and heat is energy for those who do not know)

[NoTiGG]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

I still can't agree with you that taste is instinct, it is a physical function, not an emotional reaction. You have an emotional reaction to taste but the actual physical process in not an instinct.


.

So flinching our hand away when it touches a Hot pot is not an instinct since it is not emotional right?

You already contradicted yourself earlier when you said "The only instinctual aspect of taste is when something tastes really bad" . If something is instinctual that means we know it natively without having to be taught. If we know something is bad for us because it tastes bad... that is an instinct.

Now take a potato. A raw potato does not really really taste bad. But we Instinctually know............ what foods provide us with more energy than others. We do not have to be taught that a cooked potato is going to provide us with more energy.. than a raw one which is full of indigestible starch. We know it as soon as we bite into it.

Taste is instinctual. Preference (what you choose to eat) is based off of this instinct. But it does not rely soley on it. Which is good as you can see because then we would be eating only energy producing foods.

The point of the post is this.. we are attracted to foods which give us energy........ and it is the logical conclusion of this fact... that since we are attracted to energy giving foods... we are more attracted to ones that give off a better ratio of energy output to input.

[LoMaH]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

Lets requote what you quoted

"*We have a sense of hunger which expresses itself as appetite and we eat until this is satisfied, but this only applies to the part of our food which produces power and heat.
We have almost no sense of hunger for the minerals and other chemicals and vitamins that are needed for building new and repairing old tissues.**
"

So we hunger for food........ we are attracted to food (same thing if you understand basic english) that gives power and heat. (Power and heat is energy for those who do not know)

I commented on this thread with a spirit of discussion, but I don't appreciate the sarcasm in your post.

This is only a snippet of his letter. (I actually have the entire letter printed out but can't find the link to it anywhere. ) You're interpreting it differently than what it is to align with what you're saying.

There's no mention in his writings about us being attracted (or preferring or instincts) one way or the other. Only that when we eat, we don't discriminate nutrient dense foods (that provide power and heat, energy, calories) from foods with empty calories.

Nowhere does he mention that we prefer foods that provide the MOST power and heat over those that provide less (that's YOUR theory).
He wrote that as long as food provides us with power and heat up to 2-3,000 cals/day, our hunger is satiated.

That's what I'm trying to clarify.
You're certainly welcome to believe as you wish.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

So flinching our hand away when it touches a Hot pot is not an instinct since it is not emotional right?

Pain is a physical sensation which results in removing our hand from the heat, the result of removing our hand is an instinctual response to pain. Babies do not know what is hot and that it causes pain until they experience it.

The point of the post is this.. we are attracted to foods which give us energy........ and it is the logical conclusion of this fact... that since we are attracted to energy giving foods... we are more attracted to ones that give off a better ratio of energy output to input.

Yeah, fruit and sweet things which gives us a high, which isn't really such a great thing IMO.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

I just wanted to say that this is completely not true. Parasites don't just magically get into meat, they have to be present or introduced, and a healthy body will not just reject parasites. Our ancient ancestors who had no choice but to eat a TF diet, including minimally cooked meat, suffered a great deal because of parasites food borne or otherwise.

First I said those on a completely raw animal food diet will have no problem with parasites, I am not talking about those that are on SAD diets or even "healthy" cooked food diets. We have evolved with parasites over millions of years they work symbiotically with our bodies, and are only present and a problem when we have decayed/toxic cells, they remove this by consuming them. Of course our ancient ancestors had no choice about the parsites, actually there are native peoples that knowingly and willingly eat parasite infested meat, the Inuit. People suffer from parasites and food borne illness because they are compromised to begin with and the parasites are there to assist. I realize this is against everything that conventional "wisdom" would have us believe. The other thing is I consider diarrhea and vomitting to be body's healing symptoms, if they are occurring then the body is in a healing phase. Granted sometimes these healings are intense and need intervention, but generally, in someone on a completely raw animal food diet, these symptoms are easily managed and are short lived. I know someone who purposely infected himself with tapeworm to resolve a long issue he had with constipation, even though he had been eating a raw diet (animal food) for many, many years. It worked.

As for native cultures, I am sure they might have had parasites, but whether they suffered, is another matter. Afterall, didn't WAP describe the glowing health of the native peoples he observed, they certanily don't sound as if they suffered a great deal from food borne "illness".

Here is one study that shows some of the benefits of parasites:

Parasites in your gut actually help protect you from allergies.

Anyway, this has taken this thread way OT, my apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread even more that I have already. Bowing out.