ExogenousMilk
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2026
- Posts
- 338
- Reputation
- 176
Diet
Fats have every nutrient, fats are the basis of the human diet for energy, and nutrition.
Fiber slows digestion, blocks nutrient absorption, and has no nutritional value. Comparable to eating tree bark
Stems, seeds, grains, and leafs block nutrient absorption and have toxins, have a decrease in bioavailability, and are not our natural diet. -phatic acid, oxalates, fiber, etc.
Common claim “Humans adapt to have different ideal diet, so how could you possibly come to the conclusion that eating 90% raw animal products is the ideal diet” isn’t entirely wrong, but you have to ask yourself why that is? The Inuit eat primarily raw fish, raw seals, raw whale, etc. This diet naturally gives you a very high intake of omega 3/polyunsaturated fats, which are highly prone to lipid per-oxidation/oxidation.
Lipid oxidation is the process of oxygen reacting to fats (in the human body our cell membranes) and breakdown to form harmful byproducts-Aldehydes and peroxides.
These byproducts cause things like cellular stress, inflammation, and tissue damage.
Living in the Arctic regions they rarely get sun, all coming from the fish.
The Maasai eat primarily raw cattle, blood, and milk. Living close to the equator, getting lots of sun.
(if you still don’t know where I’m going with this im sorry)
There are still populations that have kept their absolute natural life, for the rest of the world who haven’t, started farming, making slavery, creating government, and moving further and further away from nature. The entire idea that more technology will make a better world for the next generation, is one that pushes people further away from nature.
I’m aware this doesn’t even scratch the surface of the whole argument on primal or diet overall, but this was something that I couldn’t stop thinking about.
Fats have every nutrient, fats are the basis of the human diet for energy, and nutrition.
Fiber slows digestion, blocks nutrient absorption, and has no nutritional value. Comparable to eating tree bark
Stems, seeds, grains, and leafs block nutrient absorption and have toxins, have a decrease in bioavailability, and are not our natural diet. -phatic acid, oxalates, fiber, etc.
Common claim “Humans adapt to have different ideal diet, so how could you possibly come to the conclusion that eating 90% raw animal products is the ideal diet” isn’t entirely wrong, but you have to ask yourself why that is? The Inuit eat primarily raw fish, raw seals, raw whale, etc. This diet naturally gives you a very high intake of omega 3/polyunsaturated fats, which are highly prone to lipid per-oxidation/oxidation.
Lipid oxidation is the process of oxygen reacting to fats (in the human body our cell membranes) and breakdown to form harmful byproducts-Aldehydes and peroxides.
These byproducts cause things like cellular stress, inflammation, and tissue damage.
Living in the Arctic regions they rarely get sun, all coming from the fish.
The Maasai eat primarily raw cattle, blood, and milk. Living close to the equator, getting lots of sun.
(if you still don’t know where I’m going with this im sorry)
There are still populations that have kept their absolute natural life, for the rest of the world who haven’t, started farming, making slavery, creating government, and moving further and further away from nature. The entire idea that more technology will make a better world for the next generation, is one that pushes people further away from nature.
I’m aware this doesn’t even scratch the surface of the whole argument on primal or diet overall, but this was something that I couldn’t stop thinking about.
