While we may be able to extract all the vital nutrients, such as vitamins, minerals, and rare fats from animal foods that we need from minimal animal food intake, this in no way means that the optimal diet would be one consuming the minimum amount of animal foods. Animal foods, raw, unprocessed, and raised on a natural diet, are much easier on digestion than plant foods. More easily digested and assimilated by our bodies, it puts less stress on our bodies, allowing them to heal faster and work better in general. That's the real reason raw animal foods vs raw plant foods (of any kind) are superior.
Now, there is a very valid argument that many raw plant foods, such as fruits, are better for us than cooked or processed or raised on an unnatural diet animal foods, that much is clear from the data. But when you compare raw to raw, animal foods are much less troublesome on human digestion, which is of paramount importance when talking about ingested food.
For example, on a diet of exclusively grass-fed/hay-fed whole raw cow or goat milk and fatty cuts of raw beef, with some occasional raw organs of the same quality, you can consume one animal source, to meet all of your nutritional requirements - water, energy, and vitamins/minerals. There's almost 0 enzyme inhibitors or other toxins present in the diet, a naturally non-inflammatory diet, and the stomach knows exactly how to handle these animal foods for digestion, there's no cellulose or plant fiber to get in the way. There's no need to buy bottled water, drink tap water, or rain water or any other water source at all. There's no need for cheeses or butters or fat extracts.
If you wanted to, and had no refrigerator, but a dark non-lit area, such as burial or anything, you could store the raw milk, with raw meat inside the milk container, for months or even years in temperate climates without spoilage. You could then drink the clabbered milk, very good for you, as well as the naturally preserved meats.
Additionally, if you bought the animal from a humane farm, as you almost always will if you get it grass-fed, the single lifeform enjoyed a nice existence until slaughter, much nicer, one could argue, than it may have in the wild, where predators are a constant threat and food scarcity may be as well at certain times in certain regions, but instead the animal gets a basically paradise lifestyle until death when farm raised. And of equal importance, that mammal adds a layer of richness to the ecosystem that a farm of only plant lifeforms does not have, which on the whole makes the ecosystem more diverse.
Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
-
panacea
- Posts: 990
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
A juice diet is really not the liver's best friend. Nor the pancreas'.
If anything, the juice argument only proves that we are not frutarians. So, we need to juice fruits to better digest them? No truly frutarian animal needs to do that, since they have larger colons where they can better ferment the fruit, and digestives systems that better handle fiber.
Pork wasn't the best example, but there's also turkey, more or less the same price. And cheap beef cuts (I only don't buy those cause the only "probably grass-fed" cut in my supermarket is sirloin).
Panacea is once again right - depending on one or two types of local pastured animals is infinitely better in all possible ways. For some reason that's how many humans have always lived. None ever lived primarily on fruit.
If anything, the juice argument only proves that we are not frutarians. So, we need to juice fruits to better digest them? No truly frutarian animal needs to do that, since they have larger colons where they can better ferment the fruit, and digestives systems that better handle fiber.
Pork wasn't the best example, but there's also turkey, more or less the same price. And cheap beef cuts (I only don't buy those cause the only "probably grass-fed" cut in my supermarket is sirloin).
Panacea is once again right - depending on one or two types of local pastured animals is infinitely better in all possible ways. For some reason that's how many humans have always lived. None ever lived primarily on fruit.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Sieved juices may be very easy on digestion, because you artificially helped the digestion before ingesting the food by juicing and sieving the fruits. There's nothing wrong with this that we know about so far, other than the large amounts of sugar rapidly assimilated, that would otherwise be slowed by fiber. And if you keep some of the fiber to slow the sugar spike, then it's harder on digestion because of the fiber. This wouldn't be true of course for some fruits that are naturally a lot lower in sugar like cucumbers, but it's true for most fruits.
In the past before we had such sophisticated farming and delivery capabilities, I'd imagine just from a practical standpoint that living on animal foods instead of fruits was the only option between the two. It's stupidly easy to just find some grass for a cow to eat, they used herding dogs to keep herd animals from running away and also to somewhat protect from predators, the original reason we domesticated wolves or wild dogs in the first place. Humans formed a symbiotic relationship between themselves, dogs, and herd animals.
Then, almost every day of the year for dairy animals you'd have a food source, just needing to be milked - human hands were perfect for this. You could slaughter an animal for extra food when needed. Compare that to fruits - how many years do you have to wait for a fruit tree to put out, how stable is it, can you move to a new area when climate changes or do you have to camp in one location forever? It's a logistical nightmare. If you suddenly need much more food the next year, you're pretty much screwed. What happens when a winter or some bugs kill the fragile fruit trees... etc. It wouldn't work without the technology we have now, people would have to stay to very confined geographic regions where plentiful fruit is a stable thing, naturally, like rain-forests.
Living on herd animals literally allowed humans to migrate all over the world, even more so than agriculture, because once you set up agricultural fields you pretty much have to stay in one area as well.
In the past before we had such sophisticated farming and delivery capabilities, I'd imagine just from a practical standpoint that living on animal foods instead of fruits was the only option between the two. It's stupidly easy to just find some grass for a cow to eat, they used herding dogs to keep herd animals from running away and also to somewhat protect from predators, the original reason we domesticated wolves or wild dogs in the first place. Humans formed a symbiotic relationship between themselves, dogs, and herd animals.
Then, almost every day of the year for dairy animals you'd have a food source, just needing to be milked - human hands were perfect for this. You could slaughter an animal for extra food when needed. Compare that to fruits - how many years do you have to wait for a fruit tree to put out, how stable is it, can you move to a new area when climate changes or do you have to camp in one location forever? It's a logistical nightmare. If you suddenly need much more food the next year, you're pretty much screwed. What happens when a winter or some bugs kill the fragile fruit trees... etc. It wouldn't work without the technology we have now, people would have to stay to very confined geographic regions where plentiful fruit is a stable thing, naturally, like rain-forests.
Living on herd animals literally allowed humans to migrate all over the world, even more so than agriculture, because once you set up agricultural fields you pretty much have to stay in one area as well.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
No real frutarian needs to juice their fruit to better digest them. All frutarians have no problem digesting and assimilating whole fruit. If we really were frutarians, the same would apply. On the other hand, no (normal) human will have any problem digesting raw meat.
Even if we came from apes (and from Africa), we are apes who have descended from the trees. A gorilla is much more similar to a chimpanzee than a chimpanzee to us, yet they have very different diets and digestive tracts. Assuming that we are frutarians just because the most genetically similar animal to us is, is simply wishful thinking. In the wild you'd never outcompete apes for fruit, but you'd easily overpower them - as well as pretty much all other animals.
Even if we came from apes (and from Africa), we are apes who have descended from the trees. A gorilla is much more similar to a chimpanzee than a chimpanzee to us, yet they have very different diets and digestive tracts. Assuming that we are frutarians just because the most genetically similar animal to us is, is simply wishful thinking. In the wild you'd never outcompete apes for fruit, but you'd easily overpower them - as well as pretty much all other animals.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Also: chimpanzees, as with most frutarians, also eat leaves, stems and bark. Go see if any tribe eats that outside of literal starvation.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
The idea of our natural diet is interesting to me, personally I believe many groups of humans have been cooking, eating grains, as well as fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, etc for much longer than most people think. I don't think our current bodies really reflect our 'recent' diets of 10,000 years ago, because at some point we became smart enough to clothe ourselves with skins and furs of animals, use fire to keep warm, tools to catch and kill prey, or cook vegetables and grains, to make all these foods more digestible without having to have biological adaptations like in our teeth, guts, etc. The animal furs prevented us from having to adapt to typical thick-hair or fur covered bodies with fat just around our organs, etc. We still look very much like semi-aquatic animals, like seals. So, when we first started to become intelligent enough to do all these things, I think that's when our completely natural, 100% raw, healthy lifestyles ended, and a lot of cooking or eating opportunistic foods that might not have been the best for us started. So, it was a long time ago when this behavior started. Before this, we probably ate mostly fish of some kind, and some fruits, if the theory of permanently flooded rain-forest like habitat is true, which would explain why we have aquatic adaptions, as well as being able to walk upright. We also know we are apes, and we all know where apes come from (tropics), but no aquatic apes, besides us.. so we must be the only survivor of this flooded habitat, ape-speaking, the others either died or evolved back to tropical habitats, having fur/hair and no significant aquatic adaptations.
So, our most recent natural diet might have indeed been fruits and fish, for example, we don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out. I would just argue that, looking at our guts, fruits probably weren't the predominant food group, animal foods were.
So, our most recent natural diet might have indeed been fruits and fish, for example, we don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out. I would just argue that, looking at our guts, fruits probably weren't the predominant food group, animal foods were.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Panacea when are you going to buy a cow?
How will you protect your cows from predators?
What if madcow disease gets them?
How many cows do you need to get enough food?
How will you protect your cows from predators?
What if madcow disease gets them?
How many cows do you need to get enough food?
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Cooking, yes, but edible vegetables and grains are extremely scarce in the wild. Doesn't matter if we have always been cooking and eating vegetables and grains because it would always be overwhelmingly meat anyway.
People look at the supermarket produce section and think "humans are plant-eaters, look at all this appetizing stuff we can eat". But that doesn't exist in nature. In nature, it's all leaves and stems, most inedible or straight toxic. Grains are an absolute rarity in nature.
Just go into the wild from where you're from (genetically) and see what you can forage. That's your natural diet, it's very simple. For Europeans it will be 99% meat in the Winter, 80% meat 20% plants in the Summer. For tropical Africans, about 80/20 on average year-round, 70/30 at best.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
@Aytundra, I get my milk (and meat if I wanted) from a farm in PA, if anything I might just move to PA one day, or some other place where local farms of high quality are everywhere, rather than have a farm myself. I'd imagine they 'protect' the cattle with fences, although the primary purpose of these is just to keep the cows from wandering off, going on other peoples property, and so on, not really protecting them from predators.
Diseases in animals is almost always a sign the farmer is doing something wrong, like overcrowding the animals, feeding them a bad diet, and so on. Immune systems in animals are very resilient, it's only when they are constantly under attack of some kind do diseases get a foothold, and only when a large portion of the population is weakened like this can epidemics naturally occur. Of course, once animals (such as humans) have gone through these epidemics and harbor the pathogens, it can then present a problem to new compatible peoples, like the Europeans meeting the Native Americans, although I bet it would've been a different story if the Maasai met the Native Americans, no problems there, they weren't disease-ridden, yet they lived with herd animals like Europeans, they just didn't barn them and let their animals walk around in feces in poorly ventilated enclosures, nor did they have the dense overpopulation problem of cities, which is a breeding ground for epidemics. Environments like this invite spread of disease from bugs like ticks and so on.
In general though, 1 dairy cows provides enough milk for their own calf, and one adult human being. Some months of the year would be clabbered milk rather than fresh if you only had one cow though. If you slaughter the animals for beef later on, you would also need much less milk per day. I haven't done the math on a full grown cow slaughtered for food, but you'd probably get around 350 lbs of beef, and organs, from a slaughtered dairy cow, which should also last about a year on its own. So really, they are very good sources of food - they don't take up much space, or require much upkeep, to feed an adult person all year whether through milk or slaughtered meat. The land is the main resource in regards to herd animals - how much grass or plants grow on it for grazing. In some areas you'd need several acres per cow because the plant food is so scarce. In other places where it rains a lot and is almost like a dense meadow, a cow could live in a backyard 1/2 the size of a football field just fine, getting all the food it needs.
@mario91 I was referring to the Sumerians, earliest civilization that we know of that used written language, they were using agricultural methods to cultivate grains, and use them in cooking. Basically I'm saying that probably, the incorrect way of eating/cooking our food has been going on for a long time, due to overpopulation reasons, and staying in one place, for the stability it provides a large society. The last diet we probably all collectively shared as humans before we emerged from our last 'natural habitat' was definitely a semi-aquatic one, and most probably a tropical one, where fruit would've been abundant. This is based on our bodies being semi-aquatically adapted, and also being apes that most probably once lived on plant foods before we became predominately predatory.
The most interesting thing for me from that page is about "fat women"
The fact that basically obese women probably existed 25,000-35,000 years ago, tells me that most probably, cooking was popular at this time. It's very difficult to get as fat as the 'idolised figurines' on a mostly uncooked diet. If we've been eating cooked food for that long and still have problems with it, it's probably not something the body can ever fully become accustomed to, it just kills too many vital elements in food.
Diseases in animals is almost always a sign the farmer is doing something wrong, like overcrowding the animals, feeding them a bad diet, and so on. Immune systems in animals are very resilient, it's only when they are constantly under attack of some kind do diseases get a foothold, and only when a large portion of the population is weakened like this can epidemics naturally occur. Of course, once animals (such as humans) have gone through these epidemics and harbor the pathogens, it can then present a problem to new compatible peoples, like the Europeans meeting the Native Americans, although I bet it would've been a different story if the Maasai met the Native Americans, no problems there, they weren't disease-ridden, yet they lived with herd animals like Europeans, they just didn't barn them and let their animals walk around in feces in poorly ventilated enclosures, nor did they have the dense overpopulation problem of cities, which is a breeding ground for epidemics. Environments like this invite spread of disease from bugs like ticks and so on.
In general though, 1 dairy cows provides enough milk for their own calf, and one adult human being. Some months of the year would be clabbered milk rather than fresh if you only had one cow though. If you slaughter the animals for beef later on, you would also need much less milk per day. I haven't done the math on a full grown cow slaughtered for food, but you'd probably get around 350 lbs of beef, and organs, from a slaughtered dairy cow, which should also last about a year on its own. So really, they are very good sources of food - they don't take up much space, or require much upkeep, to feed an adult person all year whether through milk or slaughtered meat. The land is the main resource in regards to herd animals - how much grass or plants grow on it for grazing. In some areas you'd need several acres per cow because the plant food is so scarce. In other places where it rains a lot and is almost like a dense meadow, a cow could live in a backyard 1/2 the size of a football field just fine, getting all the food it needs.
@mario91 I was referring to the Sumerians, earliest civilization that we know of that used written language, they were using agricultural methods to cultivate grains, and use them in cooking. Basically I'm saying that probably, the incorrect way of eating/cooking our food has been going on for a long time, due to overpopulation reasons, and staying in one place, for the stability it provides a large society. The last diet we probably all collectively shared as humans before we emerged from our last 'natural habitat' was definitely a semi-aquatic one, and most probably a tropical one, where fruit would've been abundant. This is based on our bodies being semi-aquatically adapted, and also being apes that most probably once lived on plant foods before we became predominately predatory.
http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/anatomy/fat.htmlHuman beings are the fattest apes and most of our fat (adipose tissue) forms a continuous layer under the skin (subcutaneous). All mammals can store fat, but most of them store it internally, usually around the organs or in the abdominal cavities. However, there are a significant number of other species which, like us, store fat under the skin, for example: whales, dolphins, seals, penguins, pigs and bears, to name a few. They all either are or were aquatic, semi-aquatic or they are hibernators.
William Montagna, arguably the world's leading expert in mammalian skin, writing in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1985 writes "Together with the loss of a furry cover, human skin acquired a hypodermal fatty layer (panniculus adiposus) which is considerably thicker than that found in other primates, or mammals for that matter." [1] Current scientific theories are unable to offer any consolidated opinion as to why we so much fat although there are a number of theories. On the whole - just as they do regarding explanations for bipedalism and furlessness - scientists tend to ignore the question. Fat is important for storing energy and providing warmth, but it is also an excellent buoyancy aid as it 90% as dense as water (fat tissue 95%). The fatter a person is, the less energy they need to expend to stay afloat, with some particularly fat/obese people not needing to expend any energy at all to do so. In fact, although all large or medium-sized aquatic mammals have more fat than terrestrial ones, it would seem that the primary purpose for surface feeders is buoyancy, and not for keeping warm outside the water as Caroline Pond noted: "Bottom feeding species such as walruses and bearded seals have a thick, collagenous skin, relatively little subcutaneous fat, and a massive skeleton, while seals that feed nearer the surface have ... relatively thick blubber." [2]
The most interesting thing for me from that page is about "fat women"
Fat Women
The percentage of fat in a woman's body is on average twice as much as in a man's and tends to be more evenly distributed with extra fat in the breasts, thighs and buttocks. We can suppose that fat women have been around for a while, as demonstrated by numerous idolised figurines such as the Venus (or Woman) of Willendorf and the Venus of Hohle Fels, which date back 25,000-35,000 years. We suppose that 'fatness' is a disadvantage of the modern age and that the original human model is 'thin' and society does little to dispel the notion that the ideal human form, especially for women, is as slim as possible. But what if our ancestors were in fact much fatter than we are today and fat women in particular seen as more fertile, or more attractive, the larger they were? Unfortunately, fossils do not give an indication of how much fat a person may have had on their bodies, so we can never really know for sure.
In human beings a woman needs a certain amount of body fat in order to conceive a child. Any woman whose fat levels fall below 17% of her body mass will cease to menstruate and will not ovulate again until her fat levels increase [5]. As we have seen, the human foetus begins to rapidly lay down an enormous amount of fat during the third trimester of pregnancy, and continues to acquire this fat for several months after birth, and this requires extra resources from the mother, who has to increase her food supply through every season, including winter, when pickings may be slim. Having a sufficient store of fat in her body ensures that she can manage this. Therefore, in past times, the fattest women would have been the most successful breeders, and this in itself would have ensured that the trait was passed on.
As we have also seen, fat increases buoyancy, and in women, fat seems to increase with age, before finally levelling out around the time of menopause. Women, as well as most other mammals, on the whole cease to ovulate while they are lactating, which in natural societies can last for several years. During this time, an ancestral mother in the water would not only have to stay afloat herself, she would also have to have supported younger children and babies while she swims. The older she is, the more children she would likely have had to look after, and the fatter she was, the better able she would have been to do this. Once she reached menopause, like killer whales, she would still have been able to assist her grandchildren in the water and so help her daughters who still needed to dive for food.
The fact that basically obese women probably existed 25,000-35,000 years ago, tells me that most probably, cooking was popular at this time. It's very difficult to get as fat as the 'idolised figurines' on a mostly uncooked diet. If we've been eating cooked food for that long and still have problems with it, it's probably not something the body can ever fully become accustomed to, it just kills too many vital elements in food.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Agriculture only started 10k years ago. That's nothing/little in evolutinary terms. There's no way we've been eating grains for more than that.
Fruit is abundant in the tropics but monkeys and birds will outcompete you. Where's the frutarian tropical tribes? Nowhere. They still eat a lot of fruit, but mostly meat, cause we're hunters, not Tarzan-like tree swingers like monkeys.
And Europeans, who've been in this continent for 200-500k years, should definitely consume less fruit from an evolutionary perspective.
The Venus of Willendorf can be an idelization. Even if it was based on reality, you can definitely get slightly obese by eating loads of raw fruit and nuts in the Summer, say 10-15k calories a day. This wouldn't surprise me, since being slightly obese was an advantage for the coming Winter.
An organic cow can very well give 10-20 liters of milk a day. That will fed a whole family, and you can make cheese for the milk-less months and as provision food. It's ridiculously lucrative, that's why so many populations have lived off milk and dairy.
Fruit is abundant in the tropics but monkeys and birds will outcompete you. Where's the frutarian tropical tribes? Nowhere. They still eat a lot of fruit, but mostly meat, cause we're hunters, not Tarzan-like tree swingers like monkeys.
And Europeans, who've been in this continent for 200-500k years, should definitely consume less fruit from an evolutionary perspective.
The Venus of Willendorf can be an idelization. Even if it was based on reality, you can definitely get slightly obese by eating loads of raw fruit and nuts in the Summer, say 10-15k calories a day. This wouldn't surprise me, since being slightly obese was an advantage for the coming Winter.
An organic cow can very well give 10-20 liters of milk a day. That will fed a whole family, and you can make cheese for the milk-less months and as provision food. It's ridiculously lucrative, that's why so many populations have lived off milk and dairy.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Also, just because we possibly have eaten cooked foods for a long time, doesn't mean we can still do well with it in a world with much more toxins and mutagens from the environment. Same for fruit - even if tropical humans have evolved eating a considerable ammount (still not nearly as much as meat), modern humans could benefit from a ketogenic diet, since carbs trigger insulin which makes your body age faster and mutagenic cancer cells grow faster. Keto diets have been demonstrated to work for all kinds of diseases, and in the modern world we are under a constant state of disease or pre-disease due to the overwhelming ammount of mutagens and toxins.
Fruit is in no way THE essential food for us, since you can't live on 100% fruit but you can absolutely live on 100% meat, so there's no disanvantage in restricting it. And there seems to be a lot of advantanges, even if not scientifically proven, just suspected (by now). There's no logical argument for a fruit-based diet.
Fruit is in no way THE essential food for us, since you can't live on 100% fruit but you can absolutely live on 100% meat, so there's no disanvantage in restricting it. And there seems to be a lot of advantanges, even if not scientifically proven, just suspected (by now). There's no logical argument for a fruit-based diet.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Panacea should move to Mongolia! 
!
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ses/28949/
Why do you have to wait for delivery over 3 states. PA is far away from where you live?
Their lifespan is longer than the Maasai. Maybe it is because they ferment the milk?
!https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ses/28949/
Why do you have to wait for delivery over 3 states. PA is far away from where you live?
Their lifespan is longer than the Maasai. Maybe it is because they ferment the milk?
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
I had no idea cows produced so much milk and the calfs need so little, but indeed that is the case. Pretty cool that one cow per family is all you really need, I guess that's similar to what they had on the American frontier. Just another reason to support mainly milk rather than meat or fish - it's more efficient. 1 cow's milk a year to feed a family, but multiple cows a year slaughtered to feed a family, obviously milk is better from that standpoint.
I don't think 'ketogenic' diets have shown that. If you lived on processed, nitrate-added bacon, and prepackaged atkins meals and so on, I don't think it would do a damn thing to help your cancer. The only thing it might help is insulin problems, because there are no carbs - but there's no proof as far as I'm concerned that a ketogenic diet is healthy on its own, rather it's the animal foods, especially the quality kind, that are frequently eaten on a ketogenic diet where the health benefit comes from. Most animal foods (except raw milk that I know of) just happen to be very low/no carb. And in my opinion, raw milk fits into this food group even though it has carbs, so the same health benefits would be expected.
I'm not a big fan of cheeses, creams, skim milk and so on because they are taking a complete food (milk) and processing it. Just seems stupid to me. But there's nothing wrong with milk kefir or clabbered milk, since that is really just a form of predigestion of the complete food that is milk. It's the same philosophy that I wouldn't want to eat a lot of rendered fat, and then a lot of lean meat, or cooked meat, I'd rather just eat the natural fatty raw meat as a whole food, but aged 'high meat' would be fine, since it's just predigestion.
@Aytundra, PA isn't that far from AL, in the world of UPS and FedEx. Shipping is a pretty cheap thing (relatively) in the US now. Amazon is big business here. If I lived in the city, and ordered from rural farms, it would really be beneficial, because in the city wages go way up and the cost stays the same for quality food in the rural areas. But sadly I live in a cheap place so the cost is pretty bad, but I look at it as my healthcare.
Maasai live shorter lifespans probably because of other factors besides their diet, like the water quality/sanitation there, and so on, which kills a lot of them before they fully develop (before 5 years of age for example), which brings the life expectancy way down. I'm sure modernization of their culture from around the time of Weston Price has also been a huge detriment to them, as it has been to all the cultures he interviewed that have been modernized or exposed to processed foods and practices.
I don't think 'ketogenic' diets have shown that. If you lived on processed, nitrate-added bacon, and prepackaged atkins meals and so on, I don't think it would do a damn thing to help your cancer. The only thing it might help is insulin problems, because there are no carbs - but there's no proof as far as I'm concerned that a ketogenic diet is healthy on its own, rather it's the animal foods, especially the quality kind, that are frequently eaten on a ketogenic diet where the health benefit comes from. Most animal foods (except raw milk that I know of) just happen to be very low/no carb. And in my opinion, raw milk fits into this food group even though it has carbs, so the same health benefits would be expected.
I'm not a big fan of cheeses, creams, skim milk and so on because they are taking a complete food (milk) and processing it. Just seems stupid to me. But there's nothing wrong with milk kefir or clabbered milk, since that is really just a form of predigestion of the complete food that is milk. It's the same philosophy that I wouldn't want to eat a lot of rendered fat, and then a lot of lean meat, or cooked meat, I'd rather just eat the natural fatty raw meat as a whole food, but aged 'high meat' would be fine, since it's just predigestion.
@Aytundra, PA isn't that far from AL, in the world of UPS and FedEx. Shipping is a pretty cheap thing (relatively) in the US now. Amazon is big business here. If I lived in the city, and ordered from rural farms, it would really be beneficial, because in the city wages go way up and the cost stays the same for quality food in the rural areas. But sadly I live in a cheap place so the cost is pretty bad, but I look at it as my healthcare.
Maasai live shorter lifespans probably because of other factors besides their diet, like the water quality/sanitation there, and so on, which kills a lot of them before they fully develop (before 5 years of age for example), which brings the life expectancy way down. I'm sure modernization of their culture from around the time of Weston Price has also been a huge detriment to them, as it has been to all the cultures he interviewed that have been modernized or exposed to processed foods and practices.