Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 03:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Metasequoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the village
Posts: 5,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcarwyn View Post
What you guys are forgetting is that Dr Price compared people eating their traditional agrarian diet ( with soaked grains and cultured milk etc) to people eating a modern diet. He did NOT compare people eating a agrarian diet with people eating a hunter/gatherer/palaeolithic diet.

I think we all agree that eating fermented/soaked grains and cultured raw milk is better then eating hoo-hoo's and pizza. The question being asked in this discussion is rather, can we find evidence that eating no diary and grains might be healthier across the board then even eating them modified by fermenting and soaking...

Tanya
THANK YOU Tanya!!

That is EXACTLY what I am trying to determine. I agree with Tara's post (And Marie's of course.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson
I see the Paleolithic theories as ideal. I see NT and it's ilk as being an intermediary step.
ITA.

Homeschoolin' Mama chicken3.gifto Dd1 2/3/00, Dd2 1/13/03, Ds1 3/11/06 & Ds2 11/18/10!!
Metasequoia is offline  
#62 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 08:21 PM
 
Sharondio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it's quite a leap to say that all of the differences between paleo people and neo people are due to dietary changes. There were also great social changes taking place that put larger groups of people together in stationary places for longer periods, necessitating different hygeinic practices and allowing the spread of disease more easily than among the more nomadic peoples.

It's also easy to say that when a person is allowed a variety of foods, that person will likely be healthier than a person who is living on a single or very limited group of foods. Early agrarian diets were very reliant on whatever you could grow, which was greatly limited by climate and availability of crops.

I don't disagree with the archeological evidence of greater health in the paleo era, I just think that it's simplistic to blame the entire change on dairy and grains.
Sharondio is offline  
#63 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 09:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
Metasequoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the village
Posts: 5,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio
<snip>necessitating different hygeinic practices and allowing the spread of disease more easily than among the more nomadic peoples.
But they weren't communicable diseases, it was cavities, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc. They didn't "get" these disease from hygeine problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio
It's also easy to say that when a person is allowed a variety of foods, that person will likely be healthier than a person who is living on a single or very limited group of foods.
But they weren't & there's proof. The Paleo people ate meat (including insects), fruits, veggies & some nuts, that's pretty "limited," it was when a "variety of foods" (diary & grains) were introduced that their health declined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio
I don't disagree with the archeological evidence of greater health in the paleo era, I just think that it's simplistic to blame the entire change on dairy and grains.
How can you disagree that Homo sapiens sapiens, as we are today, don't have the proper digestive system for milk as adults?

Homeschoolin' Mama chicken3.gifto Dd1 2/3/00, Dd2 1/13/03, Ds1 3/11/06 & Ds2 11/18/10!!
Metasequoia is offline  
#64 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 10:18 PM
 
kallyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: central PA
Posts: 1,511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metasequoia View Post
But they weren't & there's proof. The Paleo people ate meat (including insects), fruits, veggies & some nuts, that's pretty "limited," it was when a "variety of foods" (diary & grains) were introduced that their health declined.
I am in favor of the paleodiet, but I think that this particular argument is flawed. Hunter-gatherers ate many many diverse species of plants, animals, nuts, etc (I remember reading from one source that they could eat 70 different foods in a day with no problem). Agrarian farmers probably ate predominantly one staple grain crop, perhaps with some dairy to supplement. Not even near the diversity of the hunter-gatherers

Me love.gif, DH guitar.gif, and DD baby.gif9/27/10!
kallyn is offline  
#65 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 10:44 PM
 
Pam_and_Abigail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 3,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

shouldn't we have a smilie where the face isn't munching on a refined grain, dosed in dairy fat such as this one?
Pam_and_Abigail is offline  
#66 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 10:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
Metasequoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the village
Posts: 5,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam_and_Abigail View Post
:

shouldn't we have a smilie where the face isn't munching on a refined grain, dosed in dairy fat such as this one?

Homeschoolin' Mama chicken3.gifto Dd1 2/3/00, Dd2 1/13/03, Ds1 3/11/06 & Ds2 11/18/10!!
Metasequoia is offline  
#67 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 11:38 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam_and_Abigail View Post
:

shouldn't we have a smilie where the face isn't munching on a refined grain, dosed in dairy fat such as this one?
marieandchris is offline  
#68 of 127 Old 10-27-2006, 11:47 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn View Post
I am in favor of the paleodiet, but I think that this particular argument is flawed. Hunter-gatherers ate many many diverse species of plants, animals, nuts, etc (I remember reading from one source that they could eat 70 different foods in a day with no problem). Agrarian farmers probably ate predominantly one staple grain crop, perhaps with some dairy to supplement. Not even near the diversity of the hunter-gatherers
Yes, I agree. The palaeo diets were varied and SEASONAL, which is a part of this discussion I'd like to also address. The agriculturally based diets were more limited and because of advances in food storage, they became less seasonally based as well.

I think it was mentioned above, but I wanted to reiterate. Caloric output estimates show that our neolithic ancestors burned far more calories, despite the illusion of a more sedentary lifestyle, than those burned by the palaeolithic people (I do have a few studies for this in my bibliography, because my advisor and I had a few discussion on this particular topic...) This is a rather new insight...it had always been assumed that the hunter-gatherer palaeolithic people had to work harder for their food, but studies done on aboriginal cultures in Indonesia, Australia & Africa show that actually less time/energy is spent on food procurement per capita than those who grow their food and raise animals for meat/wool/transportation & labor. This is just an aside, but an interesting point. Someone suggested that the disease pattern we see in the neolithic individuals is because they were more sedentary, but this appears not to be the case. (OUR sedentary lifestyle, however, is a big problem...I think most people agree with this...)

Marie
marieandchris is offline  
#69 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 01:45 AM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've read every single post on this thread. This is soooo fascinating. I'm especially enjoying the dialogue between Marie and Kelly. Marie, you are obviously well-informed and I have learned a lot about the differences between the paleolithic era and neolithic era diets from your posts. The more you can post, the better! Kelly, I'm glad you're making counter-points that are giving me a more balanced view. That was a good point about the restrictions to access of food due to patriarchical structures introduced soon after the beginning of agrarian societies which is pretty much a universal phenomenon during roughly the same period of time if I remember correctly (I taught Civilizations to undergrads, but I'm actually Ph.D. in philosophy).

I keep going back and forth about the dairy. Ds didn't get much dairy from 2-3 yo, but he's back on it in full force exactly because of my interest in NT and traditional foods. I'm still confused about this issue. One aspect is where is ds supposed to get enough calcium if not from dairy? And isn't cheese and yogurt better tolerated than milk alone? With no evidence, I sometimes think we koreans are so short because we don't get enough calcium in our diets. And because I'm Korean, no grains to me feels like death. What does one eat with kimchi then? Joking aside, asians do enjoy health and longevity today despite having white rice as a primary staple. That must count for something.

One minor point, isn't it a debate whether we have neanderthal in our blood? In the biological sciences (which I studied as an undergrad), we learned two possible theories: 1. humans killed off neanderthals through competition and/or violence, or 2. neanderthals disappeared as a species because of inter-mixing with homon sapiens.

Thank you for such a great discussion. I still need clarity about a number of issues, but I think from this discussion I'm going to start taking the paleo diet much more seriously.
Mommay is offline  
#70 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 03:34 AM
 
NoTiGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Am i the only one that believes in the sophisticated to primitive theory ? :P

all joking aside, I think there is a large element of truth to the paleolithic diet philosophy.... simply because the two widest causes of allergy are gluten and casein, gluey sticky hard to digest proteins. But look how fast anti biotic resistant strains of bacteria have adapted to anti biotics ? I believe its possible to adapt, and weston prices photographs of certain peoples... just look at the swiss for instance, show as proof of concept that it can be healthy to include dairy. They say a large part of our genome is unchanged since the switch, but they also say that we share some 90% or more of genes with rats. Large is a relative term when discussing genes.

I feel better when I don't eat dairy, but I occasionaly eat raw goat and sheep cheese. I dont think i could give them up either.....

I think with proper preparation (soaking, fermenting etc) and enough probiotics, you can digest almost anything :P

Personally though I feel better when I dont eat gluten or dairy. Im not sure which is worse either for me........ and im undecided about eggs. I went on an elimination diet once like 1 year ago and it turned out that I felt reactions to just about EVERYTHING.

I think its interesting though to find a community like this based around traditional foods, especially weston price. THere really aren't many across the whole net I have found, which is why im here! (note, its not because im a mother harhar :P)
NoTiGG is offline  
#71 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 10:48 AM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you don't mind fielding another question Marie, did paleolithic people live in cold weather? If so, what did they eat seasonally in winter? Here we are still eating organic strawberries in late October, and I'm thinking it's a good thing.
Mommay is offline  
#72 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 11:38 AM
 
Pam_and_Abigail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 3,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was wodering that just a little while ago, too. Were humans were unable to live in cold climates before they mastered agriculture? I live in a place with a very short growing season, and I can't imagine eating seasonally when my garden is covered with a foot of snow...
Pam_and_Abigail is offline  
#73 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 02:11 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Palaeolithic people lived in cold climates, but not arctic. Remember that in over 500,000 years of history, there were changes in climate. They had to adapt to Ice Ages, especially the last great one. In fact, the Mesolithic, a transitional period between the Neolithic and the Palaeolithic, is the period when the ice caps are receeding and food sources/availability are changing... the stone technology that defines "palaeolithic" then changes to meet the new needs, and thus we have the "mesolithic" which means the "stone age in between" (TMI...sorry)

There have been no palaeolithic finds in the British Isles (well, that is debated, but I won't go into it), but mainland Europe, yes. Even in the northern reaches of the continent. Africa, Russia (but southern & in mountainous regions), China, SE Asia, South Asia (Himalaya foothills and in the hills of SW India, but probably the entire subcontinent), Indonesia and of course the Near East (predominantly along the Levantine coast, but that is just where the vast majority of archaeological exploration has taken place, so that may be co-incidental.) In Europe -- Greece, the Balkans, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Germany. I think Scandanavia too, but I may be wrong. Think regions with mountains with caves, a lot of water sources, good natural supplies of meat and plants (not desertic), and ways to travel (i.e. valleys or low mountain passes...) between regions.

What would seasonal eating look like in snow bound areas? Meat, I think. OR they would have moved south as the food became more restricted. Both options are viable, depending on location. We see both in the archaeological record, but migrations of specific individuals is not reconstructable in the archaeological record, so it is just a theory.

The Neanderthal question: yes there are two theories about the Neanderthal demise. (I told you I was simplifying...) Assimilation or extinction. There are DNA studies going on right now, and that will help answer that question. The answer may be BOTH happened (in some regions assimilation, in some extinction), but this will be big news once the DNA explorations are finished. I'm very interested for the results. I personally think that the strong regionalism of the palaeolithic period may be the foundation for genetic variation in things like blood type, skin/hair/eye color, some genetic conditions, etc.

I want to stress something: while the neolithic brought to us dairy and readily available grains/legums, only the DAIRY is a new introduction. People were eating the grains and legumes seasonally (i.e. not all the time, and in great variety) so I don't personally think eating some grains/beans/rice is a bad thing or in deviation from a good palaeo based diet. It is the dairy that I see as a particular problem. But not necessarily in children (unless they show allergic symptoms)...of course, a long nursing relationship of mom's milk is the absolute best. But as adult palaeolithic people, we would've lost our source of milk for good, and that is why our ability to generate the enzymes to process it go away. There might be a small variation in who produces enzymes by where your ancestry is from, but the enzymes are made for you to ingest MOM'S milk, not cows milk -- they are very different nutritionally -- human milk = higher in sugar; cow's milk = lower in sugar, higher in protein. I can't remember the differences in detail, but it is obvious that cow's milk has different stuff...it grows baby cows into several hundred lb large animals in little over a year. We grow babies, maybe, 20-25 lbs in a year... Cow milk is based on one food, grass (ideally) -- our milk is enriched and formed by omnivorous eating. You get the point.... our body digests mom's milk just fine, but cow's milk is, well, a whole 'nother beast. I want to add here that I think the NT goes a long way to HELPING us digest milk...it adds bacteria to the food that does SOME of what our body can't. So sure, small quantities of kefir, yogurt, cottage cheese, etc. might be just fine. Small quantities.

How do you get calcium without it? Green foods, fish (small fish w/bones) like sardines --- consumed in fairly large quantities in many traditional societies, nuts & seeds (sesame seed are a great source.) I take a cal/mag supplement (a whole food based one) and give one to my children. Can't hurt since we don't eat dairy (I seem to have a pretty serious allergy, my son is showing symptoms, my husband seems to tolerate it OK, and my daughter is on the boob-juice.)

Rice -- rice isn't an strong allergy source. Rice is a variation of GRASS and is low in protein. I wouldn't worry too much about rice in your diet (brown rice = less of a glycemic index, and if you are worried about blood sugar, you should eat it in moderation)... I personally don't feel that rice is something you have to give up on the palaeo diet. It is a wild growing plant in Asia and was used by palaeo peoples there before cultivation. It was probably the earliest cultivated food (there is debate on this...I won't go into it.)

OK...I have to shower. I'm enjoying the discussion. I'm gonna post a recipe (no dairy) that I made last night that was yummy in a separate entry to this thread.

Marie
marieandchris is offline  
#74 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 02:25 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just so you guys don't think I'm "all work and no play"

the BEST dairy free/wheat free cookies ever...

2 cups rolled oats
2/3 cups almonds
1 ts baking powder
1/4 ts sea salt
1/2 ts ground cinnamon
1/4 ts ground nutmeg
1 1/2 cups mashed ripe bananas (3 bananas)
1/4 cup of coconut oil
1 ts pure vanilla
3/4 of additions -- coconut, raisins or carob chips or chocolate chips if you'd like....

preheat oven to 350
lightly oil the baking sheet

grind oats and almonds to a coarse powder in a food processor, pour into a large mixing bowl

stir in baking powder, salt, cinnamon, and nutmeg

in a separte bowl or food procesor, beat together bananas, oil, and vanilla until smooth and creamy. Add banana mixture and raisins (or whatever) to oat mixture

Mix well

drop cookie dough by the tablespoon onto the baking sheet

13-16 minutes or until bottoms are brown

3 dozen


Marie
marieandchris is offline  
#75 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 03:39 PM
 
NoTiGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Btw according to this : http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html

Fat and cholesterol are very important components in human milk. In fact, the milk from a healthy mother has about 50 to 60 percent of its energy (kilocalories) as fat.1 The cholesterol in human milk supplies an infant with close to six times the amount most adults consume from their food.1

I think sheeps milk is supposedly the closest.
NoTiGG is offline  
#76 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 06:28 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From that article

"Studies of milk from 224 Danish mothers showed that they produced milk with a very wide range of fat content. The average amount of fat was 39 grams per liter of milk and the range was from 18 grams to 89 grams per liter of milk. That is the equivalent of an average milk fat content of 3.9 percent with the range between 1.8 percent and 8.9 percent. This would mean that some babies would be getting the equivalent of 2 percent milk and some would be getting the equivalent of table cream, with the average infant getting the equivalent of whole Guernsey or Jersey milk. Studies have shown that the average levels of fat in the milk of Canadian women to be 3.2 percent, and the fat levels in two different areas in China to be either the same at 3.2 percent or somewhat higher at 3.8 percent."


I stand corrected on the fat content. I have always read that human milk was lower in fat than cow's milk, thereby necessitating human babies to feed more frequently. I'll amend my post above.

Thanks
Marie
marieandchris is offline  
#77 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 06:34 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is a nice comparison between cow's milk and human milk.

http://www.saanendoah.com/compare.html

Marie

PS. I know we all agree that human milk is better for babies. I'm just putting it out there for a reference.
marieandchris is offline  
#78 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 07:11 PM
 
marieandchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The island of misfit toys
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And another link directly addressing the difficulty the human body has with the digestion of wheat and dairy.

http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/book/bk8sect1.html

Marie
marieandchris is offline  
#79 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 08:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
Metasequoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the village
Posts: 5,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by marieandchris View Post
And another link directly addressing the difficulty the human body has with the digestion of wheat and dairy.

http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/book/bk8sect1.html

Marie
Wow, that's crazy about the schizophrenia! Great article Marie!

Homeschoolin' Mama chicken3.gifto Dd1 2/3/00, Dd2 1/13/03, Ds1 3/11/06 & Ds2 11/18/10!!
Metasequoia is offline  
#80 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 09:42 PM
 
Sharondio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metasequoia View Post
But they weren't communicable diseases, it was cavities, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc. They didn't "get" these disease from hygeine problems.
Except there is growing evidence that many diseases we thought were not caused by infection, actually are. Tooth decay has been shown to be related to bacterial levels in the mouth sometimes passed between people. Ulcers are from a bacterial infection. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

Quote:
But they weren't & there's proof. The Paleo people ate meat (including insects), fruits, veggies & some nuts, that's pretty "limited," it was when a "variety of foods" (diary & grains) were introduced that their health declined.
But they didn't maintain the hunter-gatherer diet when they introduced grain and dairy. The diet was replaced, not supplemented.

I seem to recall reading about the variety of foods in a modern hunter-gatherer study. As far as nutrient content, it was pretty vast. It also included a lot of foods that we would never touch: ie bugs. I also agree with assertions that most hunter-gatherers eat far less meat products than we do. The energy expenditure to get meat was far greater than just running out to the local supermarket.

I think the issue with the Neo diet is that people who were accustomed to eating a variety of foods (that could provide macro and micro-nutrients) were all of a sudden eating fairly limited based on the crops they could cultivate.

I would also add in some sociological ideas of strata in cultures with the onset of cultivation, stored food and therefore economies. With economies, comes wealth. With wealth, we usually have a concept of the "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots", usually the greatest group by population, are usually the ones working the hardest, keeping the least and suffering the most. I don't think you can separate out this from health.

Quote:
How can you disagree that Homo sapiens sapiens, as we are today, don't have the proper digestive system for milk as adults?
Because some of us *can* and *do* digest milk just fine. Yeah, I know, 83% of the world is lactose intolerant. But what about the other 17%? What about cultures that live on nearly nothing but milk and meat?

Also, cultured dairy can be enjoyed by many lactose- intolerant people. Casein allergies are arguably much rarer.
Sharondio is offline  
#81 of 127 Old 10-28-2006, 09:47 PM
*Di
 
*Di's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Untill I decided to do an elimination diet just to know what it feels like ( since I was recommending them to my clients left and right).
Tanya - Would you mind posting how you did the elimination diet ? (ie., I know what they are, but for how long you have to eliminate things, and if you have to eliminate dairy/wheat at the same time or separately...)

Although this thread is very interesting, it's a bit like discussing religion or politics , so I think the only true way to know for sure is for each of us to try what you tried ! Then we'll find the real answer for ourselves...

Thanks,
Diane
*Di is offline  
#82 of 127 Old 10-29-2006, 12:32 AM
 
NoTiGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio View Post
Except there is growing evidence that many diseases we thought were not caused by infection, actually are. Tooth decay has been shown to be related to bacterial levels in the mouth sometimes passed between people. Ulcers are from a bacterial infection. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV.
Even if that was true, why do you think they were vulnerable to bacteria infections in the first place? It is because if you follow a poor diet, you set up a vulnerable environment for "bad" microorganisms to thrive.

read here for more info: http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html

Most of the diseases in modern society today are not caused by the "pathogenic bacteria" that enter from outside us, as was taught by Pasteur. Disease occurs as these endobionts are transformed from the microbe stage to more virulent forms of life. The state of development of these organisms depends upon the state of the medium in which the germ lives. In other words, the microbes which live in our cells and assist the cells in maintaining a healthy state will mutate into bacteria, fungus, and viruses when the tissues of our bodies in which they live change to provide a medium for their growth. They begin to become "pathogenic" when the pH of the tissues becomes more acidic.
NoTiGG is offline  
#83 of 127 Old 10-29-2006, 10:51 AM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yllek View Post
I guess i just have a hard time understanding why one would need to resolve the question about what we are "intended" or "meant to" do? Intended by what?

Dairy has been a part of the human diet in many parts of the world for thousands of years. There is no such thing as a universally perfect food, and evolution didn't produce an end-product. There is a ton of variation among all of us. Some people will not tolerate certain foods that are just fine for others. Maybe a Paleodiet would say that we are "intended" to eat nuts. My ds is not - he's allergic to them. Some people thrive on dairy; others may not. As omnivores (and relatively successful ones from a population viewpoint), we are "intended" to experiment with our food sources. If we find a source of nutrition that works, why not go with it?

If you believe that dairy causes cancer, heart disease and diabetes, then certainly avoid it. But I seem to recall that herding and agriculture were concomitant developments, along with a lot of other lifestyle changes, and no single factor causes any of those diseases. You can find many examples of folks who consume dairy in great quantities and never develop those diseases. Furthermore, my understanding is that these are relatively modern diseases that are rampant predominantly in the Western world, and according to old medical literature, they were not common even in the West until the 20th century.

: Jumping in here.

NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.

I do not believe eating dairy is natural. DD is allergic and just about everyone in our family has issues with it. Obviously our bodies are trying to tell us something. Consuming a drink laden with pus and hormones isn't the best thing for your body.

Just like some cultures eat tons of grains and have great health. Some eat no grains and have great health. I believe there is a genetic/environmental link that is more important than reverting back to what we ate thousands of years ago when most people died before middle age.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is online now  
#84 of 127 Old 10-29-2006, 01:25 PM
 
Sharondio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826 View Post
: Jumping in here.

NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.
As I am of European descent, I'm not sure of your point. I think it's clear that if you're lactose intolerant, milk-drinking is probably not for you. But even among dairy peoples, drinking of raw, uncultured milk was likely rare as milk culture naturally in a very short period of time before refridgeration.

Quote:
I do not believe eating dairy is natural. DD is allergic and just about everyone in our family has issues with it. Obviously our bodies are trying to tell us something. Consuming a drink laden with pus and hormones isn't the best thing for your body.
And I do not believe vegan is natural. Of those vegetarian cultures, almost all of them included some sort of animal protein, even if it was just in the way of bugs. Only very recently have people been able to avoid animal products to the degree that Vegans do.

I drink only organic milk. No hormones. What you call pus, I call antibodies.

Quote:
Just like some cultures eat tons of grains and have great health. Some eat no grains and have great health. I believe there is a genetic/environmental link that is more important than reverting back to what we ate thousands of years ago when most people died before middle age.
I agree. As much as we might hail the almight hunter-gatherer diet, the simple fact remains that we cannot become hunter-gatherers. My neighbors might complain when I went browsing for edible roots in their garden!
Sharondio is offline  
#85 of 127 Old 10-29-2006, 03:02 PM
 
Shanana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 5,235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is a fascinating thread! I am fairly new to traditional foods, am reading Price's book and leafing through NT here and there. And now I stumble onto a discussion of paleo vs neolithic eating. Very, very interesting. Although it doesn't make me feel any less overwhelmed . Where and how to begin making changes :.

Anyway, a few pages back, someone included a quote that discussed the potential fallacy of just looking at average life spans. Here is part of that quote:

Quote:
To illustrate, if 50 percent of people die in infancy, and 50 percent live to 80 years, the average life span will only be 40. But when only those who lived past childhood are taken into account, people in 1900 had the same life expectancy as we do today; many lived to 70 and older. By improving sanitation and bringing down the infant mortality, we have created the illusion that adults are living longer. Once out of childhood, our potential life span has not really changed in at least 3000 years.
Fascinating information. Marie, or anyone else in the know, I was wondering if you could talk about this with respect to the paleolithic population? What were lifespans like during that time? What about when you don't take into account infant mortality? Or death from things that probably wouldn't cause death today (e.g., injuries, etc.). A common argument is that "ancient" people didn't suffer from modern diseases because they didn't live long enough. Does this hold any water? Or is there evidence to show that paleolithic peoples frequently lived lengthy, healthy lives?

And I just wanted to clarify one thing ... Marie, I believe you stated that diseases such as diabetes, cancer, etc., could be detected in bones. Can you confirm that this is true? I like to have my ducks in a row for when I share this info with others .

I'll take my answers off the air .

Mama to M (7/05) and S (5/08) my surprise !!!
Shanana is offline  
#86 of 127 Old 10-29-2006, 11:37 PM
 
Tcarwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the 'burbs and the boonies
Posts: 764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Di View Post
Tanya - Would you mind posting how you did the elimination diet ? (ie., I know what they are, but for how long you have to eliminate things, and if you have to eliminate dairy/wheat at the same time or separately...)
Sure .. But first of all...I spend ALOT of time with clients, an intake is 3 hours..and so I get a rather complete picture of a person, and their potential allergies. i also have people bring a food/mood journal on the first visit and that also helps alot. I usualy have an idea which food a person is alleric to and so recommend elim diets for only one food at a time. I am often right, but not always A great question to ask ( or ask yourself) is: what food do you not think you can do with out? What do you eat everyday and just love? What food would be the hardest to give up? The answer is usually the food they are allergic to. Sad, so sad, but true . This has to do with adrenal hormones that are released if a person eats their allergen, you get addicted to those...

Anyway...the very short version of how I recommend elimination diets: strictly eliminate the food ( I usually do one at the time) for 6 weeks ( the bare, bare minimum I feel is 3)Then on monday of the 7th week eat a bunch of the suspected allergen, then abstain again tuesday and wednesday and eat the food again on Thursday, with in a few minutes to a few days you should get a reaction if you are allergic. Reactions can be very many things: gas, belching, bloading, stomach pain, diarrhea, constipation, nausea or any other gi symptoms, mood swings, nervousness, depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, sleep issues or any other mood stuff and/or musculoskeletal issues like sore joints, stiffness, pain...

Tanya
Tcarwyn is offline  
#87 of 127 Old 10-29-2006, 11:51 PM
 
newcastlemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: My happy place
Posts: 3,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Tanya-Did you work for Recovery Systems by any chance?

homebirth.jpg<>< Mama to DS, DD, and a new baby girl 4/1! homeschool.gifmdcblog5.gif

newcastlemama is offline  
#88 of 127 Old 10-30-2006, 10:53 AM
 
phroggies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by marieandchris View Post
But as adult palaeolithic people, we would've lost our source of milk for good, and that is why our ability to generate the enzymes to process it go away. There might be a small variation in who produces enzymes by where your ancestry is from, but the enzymes are made for you to ingest MOM'S milk, not cows milk
Back up--you lost me there. Assuming I'm one of those people who has the milk-digesting enzymes as an adult, does this mean I'm intended to (so to speak) be drinking human milk as an adult? I recognize that cow and human milk are very different, but I don't understand why I would have hypothetically developed the ability to retain these enzymes if I weren't going to drink animal milk as an adult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826
NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.
I'm pretty sure this isn't completely true. There are examples of milk-drinking cultures in both Africa and to a much lesser extent in Asia, although admittedly not to the extent we see in European culture (and often it would not be cow's milk). Your broader point is probably still accurate, but I just wanted to clarify.

Of course, pace Tcarwyn's post, I could just be in denial. . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcarwyn
A great question to ask ( or ask yourself) is: what food do you not think you can do with out? What do you eat everyday and just love? What food would be the hardest to give up? The answer is usually the food they are allergic to. Sad, so sad, but true .
phroggies is offline  
#89 of 127 Old 10-30-2006, 01:49 PM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 3,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phroggies View Post
I'm pretty sure this isn't completely true. There are examples of milk-drinking cultures in both Africa and to a much lesser extent in Asia, although admittedly not to the extent we see in European culture (and often it would not be cow's milk). Your broader point is probably still accurate, but I just wanted to clarify.
On a similar note, it is my understanding that cow's milk has been sacred to a variety of tribal/earth based religions in many parts of the world.

And I also could have sworn reading somewhere along the line that human milk has been used for healing for centuries as well (point being perhaps not every human of the paleolithic era had a complete lack of milk past toddlerhood).

As far as the pus argument . . . if I believed the milk of any species was pus-laden in such a negative sense I'd hardly be breastfeeding a baby and a toddler right now. As a previous poster pointed out "pus" would be full of antibodies. Pus can be pretty widely defined. As far as actual diseased milk from mastitis-suffering cows - that's a factory farming thing and I think if you're gonna get into that kind of argument, you'll have to talk to people who don't go out of their way to avoid animal products from mistreated animals. NT is not about eating whatever animal products you can find. It's an extremely selective philosophy that involves biodynamic growth.
HerthElde is offline  
#90 of 127 Old 10-30-2006, 07:15 PM
AJP
 
AJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: land of the fruits and nuts
Posts: 1,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phroggies View Post
Back up--you lost me there. Assuming I'm one of those people who has the milk-digesting enzymes as an adult, does this mean I'm intended to (so to speak) be drinking human milk as an adult? I recognize that cow and human milk are very different, but I don't understand why I would have hypothetically developed the ability to retain these enzymes if I weren't going to drink animal milk as an adult.
I hesitate to enter this discussion, because frankly I'm weary of the argument over what's "natural" for humans. However, the above quote reminds me that I want to mention something I read recently (in the past year) that may be pertinent, and I'm sorry to say I don't remember the source. It was talking about a study (I think, not just speculation) showing that there's a much higher likelihood of retaining the ability to produce lactase (and therefore digest lactose) if a person continues to ingest lactose-containing dairy products past the age of weaning, throughout older childhood and into adulthood, without significant interruption. Those who do not consume lactose during the still-formative older childhood years are more likely to lose the ability to produce lactose, permanently.

***Warning, personal speculation to follow***This seems to me to be adaptation to life-long dairy consumption on an individual level, not just a species level. If it's present as a significant portion of the diet, physiologically the assumption is made that it's worthwhile to continue to devote resources to adequately digest and assimilate it (I think of things like this as physical intelligence). Some people maybe just don't have the potential to produce lactase past weaning, but some - perhaps descended from populations with a history of dairy as a significant source of nutrition - have the ability that can either be maintained via consumption of lactose past weaning into adulthood, or lost for good if dairy is no longer a part of the diet past weaning. It makes sense to me that the body would continue to produce lactase if prompted by the presence of lactose in the diet, but if lactose consumption stops for an appreciable amount of time (years, say) then the body would no longer dedicate the resources to produce lactase.

FWIW, I've never had any trouble digesting dairy products. My ancestry is mostly Northern European/British Isles. And I love dairy of all kinds, so perhaps I'm in denial as well, but I really don't think so.

There is no secret ingredient.
AJP is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off