Kurt G. Harris MD

PāNu means paleonutrition. The "paleo" here signifies "old" and not necessarily paleolithic. The PāNu approach to nutrition is grounded on clinical medicine and basic sciences disciplined by knowledge of evolutionary biology and paleoanthropology. The best evidence from multiple disciplines supports eating a pastoral (animal-based) diet rather than a grain-based agricultural one, while avoiding what I call the neolithic agents of disease - wheat, excess fructose and excess linoleic acid.

Support PāNu

PāNu is ad-free, completely independent and has no outside sponsorship. If you value PāNu, now you can support it. Read this for more information.


In addition to buying from the book list, you can also support PāNu by making all of your Amazon purchases for any item through the Amazon Portal below

Amazon Portal

PāNu INDEX
« Bone Density Assessment | Main | The PāNu Mission »
Monday
Aug312009

Raw paleo and food re-enactment

 

OK, I can't help it. Like most bloggers, I sometimes follow links to whoever is feeding into my site.

My stats show 41 feeds to my site from "Raw Paleo" forums.

My impression of the Raw paleo idea and the "hygiene hypothesis" indeed comes from some of the postings on this forum, in addition to having read nearly everything at beyondveg.com (which I link to in my resources)

Maybe my impressions are all wrong, so I looked for a central repository of Raw Paleo principles and found this, which sounds like it would be the place to find a Raw Manifesto, if there is one:

Palaeo articles 

« on: May 19, 2008, 06:42:32 PM »

 

 

Here are some articles by the author Ron Hoggan on the negative effects of grain- and dairy-consumption(all from a cooked-palaeo perspectiv):-

http://www.gluten-free.org/hoggan/

I haven't read the whole article linked but it does not seem to have anything to prohibit cooking in it, as the site description admits. 

Is it or is it not a tenet of "Raw Paleo" that one must not cook food and that it is unhealthy to eat cooked food?

If it is not, then what would necessitate a raw paleo subculture? Saying some of your food can be or should be raw, but it's OK to cook some of it, cannot be it, as that fits with both the SAD and every other diet as well.

Who cooks lettuce?

My impression that in the Raw Paleo world the avoidance of heating things is the core principle, and what you are eating is secondary comes from the very structure of this forum.

Here is a list of the different diets that apparently qualify:

 

Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You 

 

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet

Animal products with some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix.

358 Posts 

23 Topics

Last post by SkinnyDevil

in Re: Experiment

on Yesterday at 08:16:32 PM

 

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach 

Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans.

912 Posts 

83 Topics

Last post by Paleo Donk

in Re: How did you transiti...

on Today at 01:56:54 AM

 

Wai Dieters

High in fruit; low in a limited selection of animal foods; raw vegetables and dairy are forbidden.

22 Posts 

3 Topics

Last post by TylerDurden

in Useful anti-cooking stud...

on June 04, 2009, 09:50:03 PM

 

Instincto / Anopsology

Eating raw, unprepared and unmixed food - mono-eating.

49 Posts 

2 Topics

Last post by Iguana

in Re: Explain INstincto Di...

on July 26, 2009, 05:31:03 AM

 

Don't tell that other zero carb place, but it looks like some folks here think some vegetables are OK!

Even more horrifying to both of us (VLC and ZC), there is a small group that, adhering to the "raw is most important" theme, seem to think it's a good idea to eat a high-fruit diet, something called the "Wai diet".

Can you see how I get my impressions of the Raw idea?

Now, I read a lot of blogs and forums and this one is no different than most, with some intelligent commentary and some otherwise. Lex has his journal there and I recommend it, it is a good read.

Here are a few comments from a poster there (not Lex) that although amusing, don't tend to disabuse me of my skeptical first impression.

These comments were all made in reference to my writings here.

"In my view, promoting dairy as somehow Paleo is anti-science until someone comes up with at least a shred of evidence that Paleolithic peoples regularly drank milk for at least tens of thousands of years or that it is biochemically identical to suet, marrow, brain or intramuscular fats"

So now the definition of science is that we cannot eat a food unless we prove the impossible. That it is biochemically identical to another food (which since it is not that food, it cannot be). Anyone who reads my "what is panu?" entry sees clearly that I am interested in excluding food where we have evidence of harm. Definitions of "paleo" which just means old, after all, are all over the map. I have defined my terms carefully and until the terms paleolithic and nutrition are copyrighted, I will use them to communicate my ideas freely. I explicitly state my emphasis on metabolism over food re-enactment.

Paleolithic food re-enactment, where no one must eat of any food that cannot be definitively proven to be exactly the same as something extant before the arbitrary date of the birth of agriculture, is an impossible fantasy. Even if you could do it what is the point?

Why eliminate a food or practice without solid contemporary evidence of its harm? Why presume the only criterion of health is provenance and history?

Why make it puposefully harder to eat without compelling evidence of harm?

The syllogism seems to be: Some diseases can be caused by what we eat due due to evolutionary discordance. Some foods have evolutionary discordance because we have not had enough exposure to them for long enough. If you avoid any food we have not eaten for at least hundreds of thousands of years, you will be healthy.

This string of syllogisms has broken links all along the chain, but let me take the easy route and demolish it with one word:

Honey

Eating raw honey is biochemically indistinguishable from equicaloric amounts of sucrose refined from cane sugar or beets or high fructose corn syrup from an archer-daniels-midland tank car. It is absolutely certified historically paleolithic as it is as old as bees and the plants they pollinate. Contemporary HGs eat it every chance they get. That it was devoured with relish by any hominid who could find it historically is as reasonable a an assumption as one could make

It is also just as metabolically poisonous to eat pounds of raw honey as an equicaloric amount of mountain dew or coke classic. It will have exactly the same effect on your insulin sensitivity, your liver and your weight.

I invite all paleo food re-enactors to randomize themselves into two groups, one getting (let's keep it reasonable) 40% of calories from completely historically paleolithic honey, and the other getting it from neolithic butter (let it be evil store-bought pasteurized butter from grain fed holsteins, even!).

Come to my clinic in 2 years, and I'll do a free ultrasound guided liver biopsy and have it analyzed by a pathologist at my own expense. This will make a highly publishable scientific paper of great interest, I am confident.

The most important evolutionary discordances are not binary choices of good and bad foods but a parametric deviation from paleolithic patterns of food consumption. This is true for carbohydrates in general, for fructose, and for linoleic acid (which is essential, after all). It may even be true for grass seeds, even though the tolerable amounts are much, much smaller.

"I do not know of a single other scientist or doctor of the now hundreds in the field of Paleolithic/evolutionary nutrition and medicine that agree with his view on this. It is he who has cast aside science and adopted religion in this area, not me."

I guess I and Stephan and Dr. Michael Eades are all in the same church. Along with those ignorant Masai pastoralists. I'd like to see the list of the hundreds of doctors with interest in paleonutrition (however defined). In addition to me, there is Dr. Eades, Dr. Davis (heart scan blog), Dr. T at nephropal (don't know his real name) and Dr. Boyd Eaton who as it happens is also a radiologist. Eaton is the only MD I am aware of who might absolutely prohibit dairy.

"Instead of using his admitted limited knowledge of paleoanthropology as an argument against RPD, the more objective, scientific approach would be to say "I don't know much about paleoanthropology, so I'll just have to say 'I don't know enough about the RPD to comment knowledgeably about it."

I beg your pardon. I have not admitted a lack of knowledge of paleoanthropology because there is nothing to confess. It is indeed my reading in paleoanthropology that makes me so highly skeptical of claims that cooked food is per se unhealthy or historically novel. Where is the peer reviewed literature or symposium making the case that cooking is less than 10,000 years old? I have already stated there is no current clinical evidence for the harm of cooking. Anyone with a full-text peer reviewed article proving such can email me the article through the site and I promise I will review it.

I suspect a possible economic motive here. That is the only rational explanation I can think of. I wouldn't be surprised if his practice is in one of the dairy states. If so, his pronouncements on dairy, like those of the dairy-funded WAPF, become even more suspect and have to be taken with a grain of salt. People like Cordain, Lindeberg, Phinney, Eaton, etc. would then be much more believable on the subject. They do not appear to have any ties to dairy and not surprisingly do not consider it at all Paleo.

So now this genius has proved he hasn't even read my site as it takes exactly one click from "about me" to figure out I am in practice in the dairy state of wisconsin. I am in fact so beholden to our state's dairy industry that I buy all my butter from a cooperative in Minnesota!

My site is entirely self-funded and this jackass has simply exhausted his own credibility by resorting to such a lame ad-hominem.

Finally, anyone who reads here regularly knows my take on dairy in the PaNu scheme.

If you are lactose intolerant, avoid the dairy with lactose.

If you are allergic to milk protein, stick to clarified butter.

If you want to cover the theoretical possibility of immune issues, even after wheat and excess linoleic acid are removed from your diet, then by all means eliminate all dairy and supplement with K2

Until I see evidence that all dairy is dangerous for all people, I refuse to treat it like wheat or fructose.

I refuse to make a blanket warning against a class of foods that are cheap, delicious, available and have huge health benefits for most (if not all) people.  I have had huge success with my approach, and much of it hinges on weaning people off wheat and sugar. I would have had many more failures than successes if I threw out the the dairy baby with the neolithic agent bathwater.

Regarding cooking, I have never uttered or written a single word advocating cooking, I have only defended the heating of food against the claim that cooking makes otherwise healthy food "toxic". There is no rational scientific basis for such a belief.

Don't be a fanatic and think for yourselves.

 

Reader Comments (34)

hahahahhahahah I LOVE THIS BLOG!!!!!!!!! AND I LOVE THIS POST THANK YO!U

August 31, 2009 | Unregistered Commentermallory

I would be willing to be a paleo food re-enactor in the butter group. Is goat butter or ghee okay? Two years?

Good point about the difference in time between cooking, which is generally estimated at 250kya, and dairy, which is obviously much newer in time. Why complain about dairy because it is neolithic, yet say we are not adapted to cooked foods, which are much older - probably older than our present species? And along those lines, here is one good piece on anthropogenic fire and home bases entitled, Was the Emergence of Home Bases and Domestic Fire a Punctuated Event?

August 31, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSatya

Mal

Thank you

Satya

I am not convinced of everything in Richard Wrangham's book but you might enjoy it. I find it impossible to believe that cooking isn't at least as old as organized hunting of megafauna . Thanks for the link.

August 31, 2009 | Registered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD

I take it you are referring to Wrangham's new book, Dr. Harris?

What do you call someone from Michigan? A Michigander.
What do you call someone from Minnesota? A Minnesotan (but it has to be spoken in the right accent).
What do you call someone from Wisconsin? A Cheesehead!

That's it. You are guilty by association. You obviously promote dairy, not only because its a local source of a nutrient rich food (even if you are a traitor and get it from MN), but because you must profit commercially from it as well. How else can it be otherwise? Well, don't you fret none. I happen to be a transplanted Texan myself, and I can tell you that the beef here in this here state is the best there is. Why, you might think that I got my spurs so well planted in the beef industry, that I can't hardly speak a nothing else but the praises a beef. But maybe that's just because it's good local stuff I happen to enjoy and want to share it with others. Duh.

August 31, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSatya

Hi Kurt

I thoroughly enjoy your blog and your approach to a healthy diet and your lack of following an ideology. It seems that many folks tend to turn their particular way of eating into ideology as described by Michael Pollan in 'In Defense of Food'. I hope you don't let them get to you! I value your insights and look forward to all your posts.

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterNick

who really cares what 'x' guy on 'y' forum is saying about you. That kind of reaction really only indicates that this blog has become noteworthy. Isn't this kind of behavior to be expected from those whose beliefs are based on blind faith and not scientific evidence?

on the other hand, no one should have to knowingly accept ad hominem attacks from anyone. I find their entire response quite lame.

Here's a research paper to show those that insist on fruit:
"Acute intake of fructose stimulates lipogenesis and may create a metabolic milieu...
...esterification of fatty acids..." [link to abstract]

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterwebster

Spot on post. Some folks get caught up in letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the good. The same probably wear skins and crap in the woods once in a while to recreate the "experience". Keep up the good work.

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterDrew

> Who cooks lettuce?

The French e.g. petits pois a la francaise

Sorry :-) but I couldn't resist

Great blog btw, I love your firm but fair approach to idiots.

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJacqueline

I read most if not all of the articles on the Wai diet back in the day and was even contemplating trying the diet for myself. What kept me from doing it, however, were the complaints of people on the forum reporting receding gums from drinking all the orange juice.

At the time, they didn't make a distinction between eating fruit and drinking fruit juices -- apparently they're not scared of all that fructose! Nowadays I'm also wary of consuming raw eggs, which I used to do, because of prions (and maybe salmonella). Raw eggs and orange juice was a staple of the Wai diet for many on the forums. That's pretty scary.

I've said this before, but the only thing that is potentially harmful with cooking -- despite our evolutionary adaptation to it -- are advanced glycation endproducts, which accumulate with aging. However, while I'm pretty sure excessive cooking is a bad idea, I'm more worried about endogenous AGEs than exogenous AGEs. So even though meat generally has lots of AGEs and fruit has very few AGEs, I'm betting excess fructose consumption contributes to the accumulation of AGEs more than meat consumption because of what happens after digestion.

Some aspects of raw foodism are somewhat appealing to me, but an emphasis on fruit is not one of them.

- JLL

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJLL

The 'dairy state conspiracy' had me shaking my head (with a little LOL thrown in).

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but I need some proof. Otherwise it's just so much blathering...

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJoselyn

I've spent a lot of time on eating disorder recovery forums, and I'm stunned at the similarities between a lot of raw and/or ZC folks and anorexics. I'm sure they're completely blind to it, but they're getting off on asceticism and misguided moral/intellectual superiority. Orthorexia: it's real.

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKristine

Kristine on one side i do agree with you on the orthorexia thing... HOWEVER... as a former anorexic, i can tell the difference between my ED and trying to find real health. no anorexic would eat 3000+ calories a day. i dont obsess about food or portions or fat. carbs however, ive done my research, theyre bad, i steer clear.

anorexia is a brain disorder, a chemical imbalance caused when genetic traits are set up in the right environment. its deadly and causes severe malnutrition problems, ZC and VLC... not deadly

i do think after the brief skim i have had on the raw paleo form that some of them are so stressed & full of anxiety over their raw meat and "pureness" that yes, orthorexia fits the bill on some of them. if it taking over their lives & impacting their social & day to day situations... they should get help

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered Commentermallory

Just to apologise in advance - in case anyone takes offence at my undefined use of the term 'idiots'. I mean those such as the dairy state conspiracy theorist or those who persist in argumentatively misreading things that Kurt didn't actually write or those of a religious bent with obsessions about a particular foodstuff...Not at all any who are just commenting or questioning because they are new to the field

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJacqueline

JLL: "So even though meat generally has lots of AGEs and fruit has very few AGEs, I'm betting excess fructose consumption contributes to the accumulation of AGEs more than meat consumption because of what happens after digestion."

JLL check this out.....

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKetoJim

are AGE's absorbed? it seems to me that, absent a leaky gut, an AGE will be broken down into its components before being absorbed, i.e. it will cease to be an AGE. imagine ingesting, for example, HbA1c. this would never be absorbed as is, but would be cleaved into amino acids, sugars and so on. what's your take on this, kurt?

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterjeff klugman

As the previous posters, I too think you shouldn't worry about some raw paleo guy's comments about your opinions on recommending dairy products especially as they became personal. There is no much point in trying to prove him wrong, your reputation or standing has not been tarnished. You have an ever increasing number of readers, people interested in what you have to say, people grateful for the information you share. Not to worry.
You mentioned a possible future post on orthorexia recently, is there going to be one? I was called orthorexic by my husband, (because I do not eat wheat, vegetable oil, cakes, avoid fruit, restrict carbs, etc) a hat that I refuse to wear, but do not worry about it too much. What is normal? What is considered normal by the others is not necessarily healthy. Like Peter used to say in relation to his goth daughter, he feels more odd and different than the goths who are after all all eating the same diet like everybody else.

Thank you for all your work. ( Regarding your costs, were you thinking about creating a 'donate' button like Stephan did?)

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered Commentersimona

Jacqueline, I think it is fairly clear to see that the "dairy state conspiracy theorist" has not read enough of the panu site to have a good understanding of the position on dairy. Kurt is not pushing dairy, and in fact, he has spelled out most (if not all) of the problems that may be associated with dairy in certain segments of the population. In fact, isn't step 12 of the approach removal of dairy (or at least everything except dairy fat)?

Dairy appears to cause symptoms of estrogen dominance in me. It is vague and takes some weeks after eating things like cheese and cream to experience more exagerated pms symptoms. I don't know if I would be okay with just the fat, as when I endulge in dairy, it is usually cream, butter and cheese altogether. If I keep my intake to once or twice a week, it seems to have no effect. Perhaps I should ditch it altogether, as I do periodically. But it is a nice addition to the diet.

I don't know if that particular idea has been presented here, but a quick search of estrogen does not seem to give me any dairy connections. I would appreciate any information about whether or not the growth factors in dairy might present a problem in some of us.

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSatya

Dumb question - how exactly did paleolithic people harvest honey from a hive? I can't imagine they liked it so much that they would endure getting repeatedly stung :)

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJoselyn

Simona

You are welcome and no, I am not worried.

As you can see the poster is not identified by name. My interest is not in reputational self-defense or an internet feud.

I have heard these arguments before and just wanted to respond as I thought it may be of general interest.

Comments on orthorexia to come.

No donate button yet, but something to consider.

Jacqueline

I don't think anyone misinterpreted your use of "idiot".

Jeff

No only should AGEs be digested and metabolized to some degree, but their significance should be the degree to which they cause or propagate damage to important structural or functional proteins in the body, not just that they are absorbed or even found in the blood, etc. I suspect so far that the damage caused by excess glucose or fructose is orders of magnitude more than any such effect of eating AGEs and ALEs, but I am still learning about it.

JLL

You said:

"I'm betting excess fructose consumption contributes to the accumulation of AGEs more than meat consumption because of what happens after digestion."

I agree

September 1, 2009 | Registered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD

Kurt:

Spot-on as always!

All of my life I have always had an aversion to fruit (I like the flavors but have trouble with the textures), to the horror of my parents, family and later my friends, so perhaps I have been eating with some "primal instincts" all along! I wish I could say the same about all of the other sweet temptations in my former sugar/carbo addicted SAD (Standard American Diet) life.

I must admit to an occasional sweet treat, but only if I make it myself, and I use almond flour instead of wheat, and yikes!! raw honey (I use so little of this in a recipe that nobody else in my household will eat what I make because it isn't sweet enough to their sugar infused taste buds!).

I celebrated my birthday while on vacation in Southern California last month, surrounded by extended family who were totally appalled that I refused to eat the store bought birthday cake that they insisted on buying for me (never mind that I was 28 pounds lighter and feeling great thanks to my new VLC diet!). I just had to shake my head, as I was totally appalled in return, watching them scarf up wheat, HFCS, linoleic acid, fruit by the ton (because it is "good for you"), soda, etc like it was going out of style for two weeks. The SAD thing for me, was also watching them all take all of their prescription medications every morning.

One other thought. I've seen it argued that because we have taste buds specifically geared to taste sweetness, therefore we must be meant to eat fruit! No, I think we have them to be able to enjoy the subtleness of foods. Something meant to entice us to nourish ourselves! I am truly amazed this summer that most freshly picked veggies that I eat have a very subtle sweetness, a sweetness that in my former diet I was unable to detect because my sense of taste was so blunted by huge quantities of refined sugar that I was eating.

Can't wait for the next post!

Jenny

September 1, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJenny Light

The Chinese also cook lettuce. Of course, what don't they cook? :)

September 2, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterAaron Blaisdell

why spend so much time blogging about and quoting these guys? kind of obscure. who cares?

September 2, 2009 | Unregistered Commentershel

Shel

If it bores you you can skip it.

The topics of Zero Carb and and Raw Only interest me in the context of nutrition, so I blog about them.

September 2, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD

I found this blog a couple of weeks ago and it caught my attention instantly, but this post is that best that I have ever read on Paleo food.
Congrats

September 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMitoMutant

Hi Kurt, The Primal Potatoes series at http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/ is very interesting and I would love to hear your take on it! WP

September 3, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterwinalot

Alot of people come to the PD who are just angry at modern life instead of in conscious agreement with scientific paradigm. To them, it's simply the latest fad in the anti-industrial trend which has made up so much of pop culture for the last 50 years. They eat this way for ethical and political reasons as much as they do for health reasons (which they don't fully understand).

There's also a huge correlation between people who are attracted to things which make them feel like they're communing with nature and an aversion to capitalism. No wonder they would accuse you of being on the take (as if that would somehow automatically make your points less valid anyways).

Ironically enough, I discovered the PD as a result of my interest in a particular philosophy - the most pro-modernity philosophy there is. Some of the people I talk with about that turned me on to it because they, like me, know that embracing civilization and eschewing it's addiction to carbs are not mutually exclusive.

It's called not being superficial.

September 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterGrant

Grant

The naturalist fallacy, that what is natural is good and everything in the sphere of man's culture is somehow apart from that "good" nature - is as reality- denying and fantastical as the ancient religions and their arbitrary sky-gods.

I am curious - what is your pro-modernity philosophy?

September 3, 2009 | Registered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD

Mito

Thank you very much.

Win

Don has some good stuff there. I'll look more closely later. Our amylase production is one of many obvious bits of evidence that refute the claim that we evolved to be obligate carnivores. There are many others and I am by no means done with this issue. It's important to address because the "carbs in any amount are poison" meme makes our task of attacking the real enemies that much harder.

Our real enemies are wheat and the other neolithic agents of excess vegetable oils and fructose.

September 3, 2009 | Registered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD

Joselyn

You have of course identified a key concept I plan to expand on - the fact that evolutionary discordance is more about technology changing the cultural and biological availiability of foods than it is about whether we ever ate them.

That is actually what is unique about PaNu. "duplicating the evolutionary metabolic milieu" is not achieved by asking what foods were introduced after a certain date. It is more about asking how the internal hormonal and metabolic mileu differs as a whole.

Paleolithic peoples did not get type II diabetes easily for exactly that reason. Not because honey (sucrose) was not available in the paleolithic, but because to get it in neolithic amounts requires neolithic technology. Bee stings and scarcity definitely limited honey consumption in the paleolithic.

It's all about the metabolic milieu, not food-re-enactment with a checklist.

Diet is about biology and biological systems are parametric. (A new dogma)

The claim that no one ever milked a wild animal ( Actually I doubt this -I once killed a whitetail doe that was still lactating - it would have been very easy to drink the milk) is irrelevant. If milk fat is otherwise healthy and especially healthier than fruit or honey that is considered more "paleo" then it does not matter if we first drank it yesterday.

September 3, 2009 | Registered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD

KetoJim,

I have read that article. I also have a blog post on the subject here: Eating Meat or Going Vegan? Comparing AGE Levels in Vegetarians and Omnivores. I think Eades had good points in his post, but saying that "vegetarians AGE faster" based on this study is a bit of a stretch. For example, if fructose is the biggest cause of AGEs, why did lacto-ovo-vegetarians who eat less fructose than vegans have the highest levels of AGEs?

Jeff,

"Are AGE's absorbed? it seems to me that, absent a leaky gut, an AGE will be broken down into its components before being absorbed, i.e. it will cease to be an AGE. imagine ingesting, for example, HbA1c. this would never be absorbed as is, but would be cleaved into amino acids, sugars and so on."

I've seen two commonly quoted figures on dietary AGE absorption: 10% and 30%. One explanation I've seen for AGEs being absorbed as AGEs was that the body is unable to recognize and break down some AGEs and use them as individual amino acids; rather, they get absorbed as they are, which is potentially harmful. I imagine it's similar to how proteins and other molecules that the body cannot break down end up as intracellular junk, but I'm not an expert on biology or chemistry.

- JLL

September 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJLL

I still do diary although I will go on a diary free fast a few times a year. I find it very hard to maintain a proper level of protein in my diet without including some grass-fed whole milk, Greek Yougurt or Cypress Grove goat cheese in my diet. I like to think some of my 'ancestors' herded a few goats.

September 5, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterpjnoir

Kurt,

Objectivism

September 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterGrant

I tried all forms of raw dairy / pasteurized dairy available in my area:
goat, cow, carabao

They all give me tummy aches and I fart so bad and so gross.

Dairy does not work for me.

September 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterEdwin Casimero

edwin

That is lactose intolerance

September 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKurt G. Harris MD
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.