Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Members' Journals => Journals => Topic started by: DeadRamones on September 28, 2009, 08:51:36 am
-
I don't follow a paleo style diet. I've been doing this for about 3 months. Each month I phase out a different part of my diet until I can reach relatively close to a paleo style. ex, end of this month I'm cutting out dairy. My diet right now go as follow
Breakfast-2whole eggs,raw milk or yogurt,1 scoop of whey protein & sometimes banana or honey(depending on my craving)
brunch/lunch-1lb of raw meat(2x 8oz servings)
handful of spinach(just nibble on a few here & there which adds up to about a handful a day)
Snack-some dried berries w almonds
Dinner- 1/2lb of cooked meat(at work don't feel like explaining myself to co-workers yet. So I'll eat cooked food)
So far I noticed a few changes. My teeth are more grounded. Existing cavity is virtually pain free. Even when I drink hot or ice cold fluids. Whiter & a slicker enamel. I've also noted a stronger scent in body oder when I wake up.Kind of smells like watered down tomato sauce. I'm guessing it as to do with my body's PH balance.
-
Yesterdays meal:
I woke up with a headache & runny nose on one nostril & other nostril stuffed. I believe it's cause of the sudden temperature change in my area. Slept with all the windows open & thin covers that night.
Breakfast: 3 raw eggs,1 oz frozen liver,1tbs organic yogurt, 2tbs raw honey
Snack: 1 small apple
Lunch: 1Lb raw coho salmon, w/dumpling sauce for taste(seemed like a big meal but I was still very hungry afterwards. Next time I'll eat more.)
Snack 2: about 3 ounces of mix nut (I know nuts are heavy on the stomach, but I was still hungry. Like nothing can satisfy my hunger for some reason)
Diner: 1/3lb cooked turkey, 1/4 avocado
Snack3: 14fl oz oj. Was feeling congested all day. Worst was at night. I couldn't breath from my nose at all. So I sipped on the OJ(I hate buying juice) cause I thought the vitamin c would help.
Snack 4: small tea, to help with congestion & co worker handed me a small slice of brownie(I refused 3x but he said his wife made it for his sons birthday. So I ate a slice out of guilt)
-
I would ease up on the nuts, and completely cut out dried fruit.
-
You are still eating enough carbohydrates to make congestion. Zero carb is what worked for this for me.
For an overnight fix of congestion, a glass or two of water worked.
You are hungry after a meal because your body does not believe that veggie fat is fat. Mine is the same, we have lots of company.
OJ is one of the common poisons. Mine was lemonaid, and I still miss it.
-
I didn't plan on eating the whole bag of mixed nuts. I didn't have that full feeling. So my body just told me to keep eating it. I hate buying juice, but I was at work & didn't bring any fruit with me so the nearest thing I can think of was OJ.
How do carbs make you congested? Did you find a study or was it from your experience? I'm not trying to be a hard ass about it. I don't like when people post advice from some guy who heard it through the grape vine. I'm not a complete newbie to foods. I understand how certain foods affect us. I would just like more detail on replies. Other than don't do this, don't do that.
-
It was my own experience; I would not have posted it unless others had also mentioned having the same experience.
You might get other answers here that you don't like.
-
When I was eating carbs I would have at least one nostril partly or totally clogged nearly every day (no-sugar-added dried fruits and nuts was one of my favored snacks--even when I cut out the dried fruits and ate only fresh fruits and nuts for carbs I still had some chronic congestion). When I went near-ZC this cleared up. Now my sinuses are completely clear unless I cheat or react to pollen or sudden very cold weather other environmental triggers (and the reactions to these are now much milder than they used to be). YMMV
-
I used to have nasal congestion in a big way while still consuming dairy(however raw), though I never had a problem with other raw carbs like fruit/veg/honeycomb.
.So I would strongly suggest you cut out the raw dairy, the whey protein and do a short elimination diet to see if you react at all to raw eggs(a few do, I suspect, because of the massive amounts of grains fed to the birds).
You might also consider removing the nuts from your diet as they contain a lot of antinutrients. My advice:- if you want to keep eating nuts, limit the quantity you eat each day and make sure to soak any nuts you want to eat for a full 24 hours beforehand. Soaking in water will remove some of the antinutrients.
-
William, I appreciate the answers posted. I do understand(especially from this site) that I will get allot of informal & irregular diet tips compared to what we've been taught from past experience. That's why I prefer if people posted from either their experience or from a study. So I know I'm getting a legit answer.
Tyler, I've read about nuts anti nutrients, does that apply to all nuts(almonds vs peanuts)? I'm also phasing out of my current style of eating(cutting:whey protein,dairy,5 meals a day). So within a month or so I should be headed towards a more paleo style of eating.
-
Tyler, I've read about nuts anti nutrients, does that apply to all nuts(almonds vs peanuts)?
I'm afraid so.
-
Yeah, my own experience matches what Tyler said about dairy and nuts too. I know, bummer.
I managed to eliminate dairy early, despite it being one of the food categories I was most addicted to. When I tried to reintroduce pasteurized or raw dairy products the results were unpleasant. I've never tried unpasteurized ghee, but I have no desire to, since grassfed suet is more easily acquired and cheaper where I live and I have come to love suet melted at low temps, and I believe it likely that animal fats have superior health effects for me over dairy fats, based on my experience and research.
Tree nuts (mainly almonds and walnuts) were one of the last foods I gave up and I resisted it--in part because I liked them but mostly because so many sources said that tree nuts were healthy, including Cordain, Eaton and Audette. I did better after I eliminated the nuts and not long afterward I discovered that wild almonds are lethally toxic (I've read that as little as a handful can kill you) and almonds were not domesticated until the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) or possibly a bit earlier (www.l.org/entry/Almond). It makes sense, because the almond tree doesn't "want" the almonds to be eaten, since almonds are the seed of the plant that must survive and germinate if the tree is to reproduce. Plus, the geographic range of almonds was quite limited in Paleo times and is still rather limited today, despite some intentional spread. So it's surprising that Cordain, Eaton and Audette consider almonds a Paleo food. My guess is that they are not familiar with the full history of almonds. It doesn't make sense to me for us to eat foods that nature explicitly put toxic chemicals in to make sure we would NOT eat them.
The most toxic antinutrient in almonds is cyanogenic glycoside amygdalin, a chemical which can became hydrogen cyanide (Prussic acid) if the nuts get crushed (such as from chewing). Amygdalin from peach and apricot pits is used in the production of the controversial alternative cancer treatment Laetrile (the toxic effect of the amygdalin in Laetrile is supposed to kill the cancer cells--remember, most medicines are toxic and tend to have side effects if taken for a sufficiently long period or in a sufficiently large dose). The amount of amygdalin (and other antinutrients) in domesticated almonds is far lower than in the lethal wild almonds, but there's still some in it. Many sources mistakenly report that there's no amygdalin at all in domesticated ("sweet") almonds, but this is simply not true (did this urban legend come from industry propaganda, I wonder?). Whole freeze dried sweet almonds without the skin average 1.2 mg of amydalin per gram dry weight of almonds ("Pharmaceutical compositions for alleviating excess levels of sugar in diabetic patients," http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0257508.html). Other plant foods reportedly containing small amounts of amygdalin include beansprouts, carrots, celery, green peppers, lettuce, and mushrooms, among others (Stephen N. Vogel, Thomas R. Sultan, and Raymond P. Ten Eyck, "Cyanide Poisoning," Clinical Toxicology, 1981, Vol. 18, No. 3 : Pages 367-383, http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563658108990043?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ctx and "Apricot: Herbal Medicines," www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/herbals/current/1000728187.htm--both sources require registration).
Again, as Tyler has mentioned elsewhere, small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects, but if eaten regularly as staple foods, one might consider emulating what all other primates do that eat plenty of antinutrient-containing foods: they regularly eat healing clays or other toxin-absorbing materials from time to time. Given the low doses of antinutrients in some of today's farmed foods, it may not take that much clay to do the trick, though I prefer to just avoid the antinutrient foods, at least for now. Also, I should note that some people appear to have higher tolerances for plant antinutrients and carbs than others. I appear to have very low tolerances, but others here have reported much higher tolerances, so your best guide is probably the signals from your own body.
I only recently learned this info about almonds, so if I erred anywhere, feel free to correct me.
-
PaleoPhil thanks for the info. That cleared up alot!
small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects I read an article about how mushrooms are used as chemo alternatives in Asia. The study claims that the consumed mushroom(can't recall what specific type) stimulated the immune system cause your body thinks it's an invader & trys to fight it. Don't know how true it is but it seems to make sense, since it is fungus.
I'm trying to give up dairy completely. It's kind of tuff cause I love salty cheese & yogurt. On a side note, one of my coworkers was telling me that in Israel. Cheese was thought to be discovered by a traveling man who packed goat milk in a goat intestinal container bag & noted the spoiling of the milk as he traveled. which kind of made me think that if there was ever any cheese consumed in paleo times. It was probably when a decaying carrion of a baby bovid was scavenged. which I'm guessing would happen once if any, in a life time.
-
Dairy was nonexistent in Palaeo times. One has to bear in mind that the udders have hardly any actual dairy in them, the teats have to be stimulated in order for dairy-producing hormones to get to work and make the stuff. So, only domestication could ensure anything more than tiny amounts.
-
That's interesting stuff, Tyler, and something I never hear about from the pro-WAP crowd. Do you have a good source to refer me to for more info?
-
Dairy was nonexistent in Palaeo times. One has to bear in mind that the udders have hardly any actual dairy in them, the teats have to be stimulated in order for dairy-producing hormones to get to work and make the stuff. So, only domestication could ensure anything more than tiny amounts.
Interesting. I always thought milk production & their hormones existed shortly after giving birth. If you do have any more info please post.
I've read about how some paleo enthusiast believes that what ever foods was in an animals stomach were consumed. Also how a certain tribe of Eskimo's (post peleo)made soups & salads out of it. I'm fully aware that dairy products wasn't available in paleo times(except for mothers milk). I'm just making an assumption that if any cheese was to ever be consumed, that it would of probably came from decaying carrion of a baby bovid.
-
That's interesting stuff, Tyler, and something I never hear about from the pro-WAP crowd. Do you have a good source to refer me to for more info?
Heres' standard stuff re breast-stimulation releasing hormones thus providing milk for the infant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation
Another consideration is that cows were not genetically selected to have those huge udders during the Palaeolithic era. That came later due to doemstication.
-
Yeah, my own experience matches what Tyler said about dairy and nuts too. I know, bummer.
I managed to eliminate dairy early, despite it being one of the food categories I was most addicted to. When I tried to reintroduce pasteurized or raw dairy products the results were unpleasant. I've never tried unpasteurized ghee, but I have no desire to, since grassfed suet is more easily acquired and cheaper where I live and I have come to love suet melted at low temps, and I believe it likely that animal fats have superior health effects for me over dairy fats, based on my experience and research.
Tree nuts (mainly almonds and walnuts) were one of the last foods I gave up and I resisted it--in part because I liked them but mostly because so many sources said that tree nuts were healthy, including Cordain, Eaton and Audette. I did better after I eliminated the nuts and not long afterward I discovered that wild almonds are lethally toxic (I've read that as little as a handful can kill you) and almonds were not domesticated until the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) or possibly a bit earlier (www.l.org/entry/Almond). It makes sense, because the almond tree doesn't "want" the almonds to be eaten, since almonds are the seed of the plant that must survive and germinate if the tree is to reproduce. Plus, the geographic range of almonds was quite limited in Paleo times and is still rather limited today, despite some intentional spread. So it's surprising that Cordain, Eaton and Audette consider almonds a Paleo food. My guess is that they are not familiar with the full history of almonds. It doesn't make sense to me for us to eat foods that nature explicitly put toxic chemicals in to make sure we would NOT eat them.
The most toxic antinutrient in almonds is cyanogenic glycoside amygdalin, a chemical which can became hydrogen cyanide (Prussic acid) if the nuts get crushed (such as from chewing). Amygdalin from peach and apricot pits is used in the production of the controversial alternative cancer treatment Laetrile (the toxic effect of the amygdalin in Laetrile is supposed to kill the cancer cells--remember, most medicines are toxic and tend to have side effects if taken for a sufficiently long period or in a sufficiently large dose). The amount of amygdalin (and other antinutrients) in domesticated almonds is far lower than in the lethal wild almonds, but there's still some in it. Many sources mistakenly report that there's no amygdalin at all in domesticated ("sweet") almonds, but this is simply not true (did this urban legend come from industry propaganda, I wonder?). Whole freeze dried sweet almonds without the skin average 1.2 mg of amydalin per gram dry weight of almonds ("Pharmaceutical compositions for alleviating excess levels of sugar in diabetic patients," http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0257508.html). Other plant foods reportedly containing small amounts of amygdalin include beansprouts, carrots, celery, green peppers, lettuce, and mushrooms, among others (Stephen N. Vogel, Thomas R. Sultan, and Raymond P. Ten Eyck, "Cyanide Poisoning," Clinical Toxicology, 1981, Vol. 18, No. 3 : Pages 367-383, http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563658108990043?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ctx and "Apricot: Herbal Medicines," www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/herbals/current/1000728187.htm--both sources require registration).
Again, as Tyler has mentioned elsewhere, small amounts of toxic antinutrients can actually have medicinal effects, but if eaten regularly as staple foods, one might consider emulating what all other primates do that eat plenty of antinutrient-containing foods: they regularly eat healing clays or other toxin-absorbing materials from time to time. Given the low doses of antinutrients in some of today's farmed foods, it may not take that much clay to do the trick, though I prefer to just avoid the antinutrient foods, at least for now. Also, I should note that some people appear to have higher tolerances for plant antinutrients and carbs than others. I appear to have very low tolerances, but others here have reported much higher tolerances, so your best guide is probably the signals from your own body.
I only recently learned this info about almonds, so if I erred anywhere, feel free to correct me.
About amygdalin:
Just because a plant contains an anti-nutrient or natural toxin does not mean it will harm our bodies. Some natural toxins in plants are actually very healthy to the human body. Amygdalin is completely non-toxic. That one link is a joke, since it obviously lacks a basic understanding of biochemistry. I wish more people would try to understand biochemistry before making such unfounded claims. I consume amygdalin almost every other day for it's benefits of cancer prevention. When I eat certain fruits that have seeds that contain amygdalin, I just eat the seeds along with it. Yes, only certain bitter tasting seeds/nuts contain enough amygdalin, so only bitter almonds, apple seeds, apricot seeds, and a few other nuts/seeds are high in amygdalin. I have been consuming amygdalin for years and there are no negative side effects whatsoever.
Many people will say that amygdalin is 'toxic' and can harm you because it contains cyanide, but, once again, that is because they haven't done the research or don't understand basic biochemistry. Vitamin B-12 also contains a form of cyanide (cyanocobalamin). Why don't people drop dead from cyanide poisoning from consuming red meat? Well, it's simple, actually. Cyanide, in it's gaseous form, is very deadly. However, as far as food goes, it's completely different, due to the natural biochemical sequence of chemical compounds that depend on each other. So, just because amygdalin contains cyanide does not mean it is deadly. Cyanide, in certain natural forms, can actually be very healthy. Anyway, the whole amygdalin and cyanide issue is scientifically moot.
Each molecule of amygdalin contains one unit of cyanide, one unit of benzaldehyde and two units of glucose which are bonded together. This is why amygdalin is very bitter tasting. The only way this cyanide can become harmful is if it is "unlocked" outside of it's natural compound by an enzyme called beta-glucosidase. This enzyme can only be found in very small quantities all over our bodies, except at cancer tumor sites, where large amounts of this enzyme can be found. In other words, cyanide is only released when it comes in contact with a cancer s, due to the large quantities of beta-glucosidase that is present. This is VERY deadly to cancer cells because not only is the cyanide unit released, but so is the benzaldehyde unit. At this point, benzaldehyde acts synergistically with cyanide and becomes 100 times more deadly then either unit in it's isolated form. This ONLY happens when it comes in contact with cancer cells. What if cancer cells aren't present? Well, simple. ONLY a very small amount of amygdalin from food is hydrolyzed by your body or somatic cells. Your body has massive quantities of an enzyme called rhodanese. This enzyme will convert cyanide and benzaldehyde into beneficial by-products (the HCN converts into relatively non-toxic thiocyanate). This is why amygdalin is non-toxic.
My conclusion:
Almonds are not toxic whatsoever, as long as you soak them before you eat them. This just goes to show you that fruit and nuts can be healthy and can protect you against cancer. When people often talk about certain chemical compounds in food and how 'bad' they can be, they OFTEN forget that it's usually in it's NATURAL BIOCHEMICAL SEQUENCE where other chemicals/anti-nutrients cancel out those harmful effects, thus making the whole theory behind all anti-nutrients/plant toxins being harmful null and void. As I just showed, certain natural plant toxins protect our bodies from disease and are healthy. Some seeds and nuts have great health benefits BECAUSE of certain natural plant toxins that are good for our bodies. To say that nuts/seeds are harmful because of amygdalin would mean that red meat is harmful because of Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin). Obviously, this is an absurd statement and is not true whatsoever.
So, I say to those who often overlook this important fact, just because there is a certain anti-nutrient or toxin in a plant doesn't mean it is unhealthy. Try understanding it's biochemical nature first, before coming to rash conclusions and claiming it is harmful because, in MANY cases, it can be the direct opposite. In the meantime, I will continue to eat amygdalin from my fresh produce and certain nuts/seeds. Certain soaked nuts are fine in decent amounts, as long as you don't eat too many or make it the main source of your fat/caloric intake. Just make sure you eat a raw animal food-based diet and then you can fill the rest in with certain nuts/seeds, fresh fruits, and raw/wild honey (for those who aren't zero carb).
Cthulhu
-
Thanks for the feedback, Cthulhu. This will help me see if this info is worthy enough to stand up to critical inquiry, as I haven't investigated almonds much. Someone who eats almonds and takes amygdalin supplements should be a perfect counterpoint. I hope you don't mind lots of questions while I puzzle this out. I'm rooting for sweet almonds being completely non-toxic to humans, BTW, even though they're not one of my favorite foods. The more completely nontoxic foods there are, the easier life will be for me and the rest of humanity.
"Just because a plant contains an anti-nutrient or natural toxin does not mean it will harm our bodies."
I agree. Plants, whether they be sweet or bitter almonds (Prunus dulcis) or even wheat berries will only produce noticeable harm if eaten in sufficient quantity given the sensitivity of the individual consuming them. Also, sweet almonds are much less toxic than wild (bitter) almonds. Based on what I've read so far, I don't recommend eating a bunch of wild almonds, but if you have sources that contadict that, please do share them. As I mentioned, I only just learned of this stuff myself and I'm hoping that the sources that claimed all traces of amygdalin are absent from sweet almonds are correct. Unfortunately, none of those sources had scientific references. The most scientific source I found reported that there IS amygdalin in almonds. There are likely other antinutrients as well, as most plant reproductive organs seem to contain multiple antinutrients.
"Some natural toxins in plants are actually very healthy to the human body."
Yes, as I mentioned, antinutrients can even be medicinal--in limited quantities, for limited times, depending on the person's sensitivity and the amount of any detoxicants consumed with them, and who knows what other variables.
"Amygdalin is completely non-toxic."
Here is another source I found:
"Oil of bitter almonds, which is used in cooking, contains enough cyanide to be lethal, and people have committed suicide by drinking it.
Two cases of accidental poisoning with cyanide reported in 1981 involved groups of children in Israel who ate apricot kernels, which are, apparently, 'sweet and tasy'. In the first, involving a group of thirteen children, three died about half an hour after eating the 'sweets'. In the other case, which involved eight children, one died and the others were ill within two hours of eating the kernels. Apricot and almond kernels contain a substance called amygdalin, a sugar-like molecule which has a cyanide group within it. The cyanide is released when the kernel is chewed because an enzyme in the kernel is released and becomes active when it is chewed in the presence of saliva. The enzyme breaks down the amygdalin to release the cyanide. The exact number of apricot kernels that need to be eaten before adverse effects appear depends on the individual and on the type of kernel. Fifty or more kernels will certainly have adverse effects, but as few as twelve bitter almond kernels have been reported to cause serious toxic effects in an individual.
The cassava plant has also been responsible for a number of poisoning cases and can be a major problem in parts of the world where the crop is part of the staple diet."
--John A. Timbrell, toxicologist, The poison paradox: chemicals as friends and foes, pp. 218-219
"Almonds are not toxic whatsoever, as long as you soak them before you eat them."
You almost convinced me about almonds until you reminded me that some people soak them. I get a bit suspicious if a food should be processed before it's eaten, and if sweet almonds are "not toxic whatsoever," what is the point of soaking them? If soaking is to get toxins out, how does one know that all the toxins are gone? Many people, including some scientists, claim that the toxin levels in domesticated grains, legumes, etc. are negligible after processing (soaking, cooking, etc.), but when Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg and others investigated, they found significant levels of toxins remain after processing and millions of people claim to react to these foods. Interestingly, tree nuts (including the fruit seeds called almonds) are one of the more commonly reported food allergies.
As I mentioned, all primates that eat diets heavy in antinutrient-rich plants (which basically means all the primates who aren't frugivores or faunivores) eat at least some clay or other detoxicant. I posted info in at least one other thread from a book that goes into this in some depth. I find the nonhuman primates more convincing than humans on such matters because they don't have allegiances to any dietary doctrines.
I remember reading scientific papers and articles by Dr. Cordain and others on how modern foods like grains and legumes are unhealthy because they contain plant lectins and other antinutrients (here's one: http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml) that humans have not had time to fully adapt to genetically (by developing enzymes, immune system tolerance, etc.). I later learned that antinutrients are in every wild plant and they have to be in order for the plants to survive because they are natural poisons/insecticides that protect the plants from predators. I learned that scientists theorize that the animals that regularly eat a certain plant will over many thousands of years develop a system adapted to digesting the plant, and they will theoretically be best adapted if the first members of their species were eating it at the time they made their last evolutionary change. Since humans hadn't adapted to many of the plants we now eat, they were selected and hybridized over generations to make them more edible and tasty by reducing their antinutrient levels (antinutrients tend to be bitter) and increasing their sugar or starch content. In other words, they were domesticated. The problem with this is, less antinutrients/insecticides means higher susceptibility to predation by insects, worms and other animals. So pesticides were developed, first natural ones and then synthetic ones made from petrochemicals.
So the question is, have humans had enough time to adapt to the antinutrients in almonds and/or have the antinutrient levels in raw almonds been reduced so low that they can be eaten fairly regularly without problems? So far what I've been finding is reminiscent of what I read about grains and legumes. Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that grains and legumes are healthy if soaked and sprouted or cooked, but their claims didn't pan out for me. My own experience found them to be toxic for me and tons of accumulating science suggests they are toxic for many people, possibly all.
My experience with almonds was that by eliminating them and all other nuts from my diet, my health improved a bit further. Even if soaking almonds eliminated all problems, if I have to do that I can't be bothered with them. Besides, I found raw nuts to be rather bland and I don't really miss them. They were very tasty with some dried dates or mangoes mixed in, but I'll bet even you would admit that adding dried fruit would not be optimally healthy. So I'm not convinced that I should add them back into my diet, but I'd still like to explore their toxicity or lack thereof, since friends and relatives do eat them and ask me questions about foods from time to time.
[note: edits made]
-
"I agree. Plants, whether they be sweet or bitter almonds (Prunus dulcis) or even wheat berries will only produce noticeable harm if eaten in sufficient quantity given the sensitivity of the individual consuming them. Also, sweet almonds are much less toxic than wild (bitter) almonds. Based on what I've read so far, I don't recommend eating a bunch of wild almonds, but if you have sources that contadict that, please do share them. As I mentioned, I only just learned of this stuff myself and I'm hoping that the sources that claimed all traces of amygdalin are absent from sweet almonds are correct. Unfortunately, none of those sources had scientific references. The most scientific source I found reported that there IS amygdalin in almonds. There are likely other antinutrients as well, as most plant reproductive organs seem to contain multiple antinutrients. Yes, as I mentioned, antinutrients can even be medicinal--in limited quantities, for limited times, depending on the person's sensitivity and the amount of any detoxicants consumed with them, and who knows what other variables."
Again, not all anti-nutrients in their natural form are harmful because many plants have other chemical compounds that deactivate these anti-nutrients within it's natural biochemical sequence, as I have already showed with the biochemical activity of the amygdalin molecule. So, it's not a question of whether a certain nut/seed has amygdalin or not. The simple fact is, amygdalin is not toxic to the human body, therefore it does not matter. In general, most bitter nuts/seeds have the highest concentration of amygdalin, whereas the less bitter fruits and nuts/seeds usually have a much lower concentration of the molecule. Sweet almonds probably contain a very small amount of amygdalin, but not enough. Obviously, you can eat too much fruit, but that really means nothing, since we all know that too much of anything can be harmful, including animal products (ever ate too much fat back?). For example, I do very well on raw honey and fruit because I am very active. Without it, I would ruin my health and fitness goals. Some people may be more carb-sensitive from decades of eating highly refined, unnatural carbs and probably do better on a high fat diet. That's fine and if that works, then they should keep at it. But I am not concerned about the healthy sugar in fruits and honey (yes, it is healthy, at least for me, due to my highly active lifestyle, not to mention the fact that they still contain very healthy nutrients) or the "anti-nutrients" because, from my background in science, I know that most of it is not a big deal, nor does it negatively affect my health, therefore I will keep eating it and setting new fitness goals.
Here is another source I found: nevertheless, I currently have a hard time believing it because
"Oil of bitter almonds, which is used in cooking, contains enough cyanide to be lethal, and people have committed suicide by drinking it.
First of all, that statement can't be true because if it contained a 'concentrated source' of cyanide then it would be illegal. Also, this just goes to show you how poor the authors biochemistry is if he calls it "concentrated" because, once again, the cyanide can only become harmful or "concentrated/isolated" when unlocked outside of the amygdalin molecule or broken down via beta-glucosidase/rhodanese (enzymatic activity). In other words, you can think of the amygdalin molecule being a bird cage with a bird in it. In order for that bird to get out of the cage, you need a key. Without the key, the bird will NOT get out. Beta-glucosidase/rhodanese is the key. The bird is cyanide. I cannot find the source that you cited. Please give me a link. I also forgot to mention that, from what you have given me, the author does not list any names or actual records. So far, not factual.
"Two cases of accidental poisoning with cyanide reported in 1981 involved groups of children in Israel who ate apricot kernels, which are, apparently, 'sweet and tasy'. In the first, involving a group of thirteen children, three died about half an hour after eating the 'sweets'. In the other case, which involved eight children, one died and the others were ill within two hours of eating the kernels."
A major problem here. Apricot kernels are NOT 'sweet and tasty'. They are VERY bitter. I eat them on a regular basis. In fact, most kids will not eat them in their natural state because of how bitter they are. This is because amygdalin is bitter, NOT sweet. If this is true, then this is really good evidence that shows you they were poisoned by something else. Nevertheless, I am currently having a hard time believing this because no kid will run around calling apricot kernels "sweet and tasty" after consuming them.
Apricot and almond kernels contain a substance called amygdalin, a sugar-like molecule which has a cyanide group within it. The cyanide is released when the kernel is chewed because an enzyme in the kernel is released and becomes active when it is chewed in the presence of saliva. The enzyme breaks down the amygdalin to release the cyanide. The exact number of apricot kernels that need to be eaten before adverse effects appear depends on the individual and on the type of kernel. Fifty or more kernels will certainly have adverse effects, but as few as twelve bitter almond kernels have been reported to cause serious toxic effects in an individual." --John A. Timbrell, toxicologist, The poison paradox: chemicals as friends and foes, pp. 218-219"
Another major problem here. Once again, only a small amount of amygdalin is hydrolyzed by the body or somatic cells. When this molecule is broken down, cyanide is not just "released" and you die. It does not work out that way. As soon as the very small amount of amygdalin is hydrolized by the body or somatic cells, the rhodanese enzyme, which is found in abundance within the human body, quickly converts the HCN to thiocyanate, which is relatively non-toxic. The author got all his biochemistry wrong on this one too. And once again, no sources were established. No records, no names, nothing. I need a link showing records of these events. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this sounds a lot like anti-amygdalin, big pharma propaganda (like the kind that went on in the early 70's when they tried to get it banned). Many different tribes still consume plenty amygdalin and they're not all dying off. In fact, the Hunza diet is pretty high in amygdalin.
"You almost convinced me about almonds until you reminded me that some people soak them. I get a bit suspicious if a food should be processed before it's eaten, and if sweet almonds are "not toxic whatsoever," what is the point of soaking them? If soaking is to get toxins out, how does one know that all the toxins are gone?"
Almonds, like most nuts, become more digestible when soaked (enzyme inhibitors are released), although some higher fat nuts, like macadamia nuts, don't really need to be soaked.
"Many people, including some scientists, claim that the toxin levels in domesticated grains, legumes, etc. are negligible after processing (soaking, cooking, etc.), but when Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg and others investigated, they found significant levels of toxins remain after processing and millions of people claim to react to these foods. Interestingly, tree nuts (including the fruit seeds called almonds) are one of the more commonly reported food allergies."
I don't eat grains, so that does not apply to this post. Actually, the most commonly reported plant food allergies stem from certain plant foods in their cooked form, just like how most dairy allergies stem from pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (no matter what your position is on raw dairy, that's a simple fact).
"As I mentioned, all primates that eat diets heavy in antinutrient-rich plants (which basically means all the primates who aren't frugivores or faunivores) eat at least some clay or other detoxicant."
Yes, but 1. they do not consume clay on a regular basis and 2. you also forget the fact that fruit contains plenty of fiber, which pull toxins out of your body.
"I posted info in at least one other thread from a book that goes into this in some depth. I find the nonhuman primates more convincing than humans on such matters because they don't have allegiances to any dietary doctrines."
I agree. Humans can be rather dogmatic and ignorant in their approach. I have experimented with many different macronutrient ratios (low/zero carb, higher carb, etc.) and I just found what works best for me and my athletic goals. Like I said before, if someone finds a way of eating that works best for them, then that's great - after all, not everyone has the same nutritional needs. So, if you want to make the whole arguement about antinutrients or amygdalin being harmful, although I have debunked the unfounded claims, then you also have to say that red meat is unhealthy because Vitamin B-12 contains cyanide.
"The problem with this is, less antinutrients/insecticides means higher susceptibility to predation by insects, worms and other animals. So pesticides were developed, first natural ones and then synthetic ones made from petrochemicals."
No, not exactly. Less MINERALS/natural plant toxins usually means more pesticides, etc. Plants that grow in minerally depleted soil need more pesticides, etc.
"So the question is, have humans had enough time to adapt to the antinutrients in almonds and/or have the antinutrient levels in raw almonds been reduced so low that they can be eaten fairly regularly without problems? So far what I've been finding is reminiscent of what I read about grains and legumes. Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that grains and legumes are healthy if soaked and sprouted or cooked, but their claims didn't pan out for me. My own experience found them to be toxic for me and tons of accumulating science suggests they are toxic for many people, possibly all."
Once again, it's not that plants contain some antinutrients/natural toxins, but it's how those antinutrients/plant toxins digest and affect our bodies. That's why I talked about amygdalin. Yes, it has cyanide, but how does this molecule digest in our bodies? Pretty well. After all, I consume amygdalin on a regular basis and I am not dead. The fact is, once again, if you want to make an arguement for amygdalin being harmful/deadly, then you would have to say that Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) is harmful because, after all, Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) contains cyanide too. Why aren't we dead? Because our bodies are well adapted to handle Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) like it is amygdalin, not to mention the fact that it is not in it's concentrated form. Plant toxins/anti-nutriets, once absorbed by our bodies, can become BENEFICIAL toxins/chemical compounds because they are MODIFIED through the biochemical actions of enzymatic activity, etc., therefore they are no longer the same molecule that they once were before they entered the body. So, yes, there can be a natural plant toxin that is used to protect the plant, but once it enters our body it might be broken down into beneficial chemical compounds, etc. The fact is, ALL FOODS, both plant and animal, contain toxins and bacteria. Plants contain natural toxins that can be beneficial to our health, including cyanide. Animal meat/fat too contains natural bacteria and toxins that can be beneficial to our health, INCLUDING cyanide (vitamin B-12).
"My experience with almonds was that by eliminating them and all other nuts from my diet, my health improved a bit further. Even if soaking almonds eliminated all problems, if I have to do that I can't be bothered with them. Besides, I found raw nuts to be rather bland and I don't really miss them. They were very tasty with some dried dates or mangoes mixed in, but I'll bet even you would admit that adding dried fruit would not be optimally healthy. So I'm not convinced that I should add them back into my diet, but I'd still like to explore their toxicity or lack thereof, since friends and relatives do eat them and ask me questions about foods from time to time."
And that's great. If you experience good health by doing so, then keep on doing it, but I have experienced better health since I added in some raw plant fats and fruits/raw honey because my body REQUIRES it for my level of fitness. I need an insulin spike after I finish working out to promote protein synthesis and pull my body out of catabolism. I have done zero carb long enough to 'adapt' to it (for about a year when I properly calculate it) and my health WAS declining, along with my fitness goals. I am a big believer in raw animal food and that is the foundation of my diet, but my body requires fruit and honey in order to function. Nuts are not essential, but every now and then I will take a handful and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as dried fruit goes, well, it depends on what kind of dried fruit you're eating. I consume goji berries almost daily (it is one of my main sources of plant antioxidants), which are sun dried and they don't spike my blood sugar violently. In fact, many people find that they actually help balance blood sugar levels, as I too have found. Other than that, the only dried fruit I consume is right before or after powerlifting. Dried fruit won't harm me because, like I said above, I NEED to spike my insulin levels after exercising in order to hault catabolism. A heavy, high fat, no/very low carb meal will NOT immediately pull your body out of a catabolic state by spiking insulin levels, driving glucose and amino acids into muscle cells (this can happen because 1. insulin sensitivity is increased after heavy exercises and 2. glycogen stores are depleted, so nutrients will go to muscle cells rather than fat cells). The fact is, for very active athletes like me, sugar from fruit and honey IS needed. I would have to question some of the raw paleo dieters who believe all sugar is evil, if they are truly active, like our raw paleo ancestors were, because it is hard as hell to lift huge rocks and logs and hike/run up mountains on a zero carb diet. I am saying this from first hand experience. Anyway, I don't want to come across as some hard-head who is bashing other peoples diets. I am just raising some interesting questions.
Cthulhu
-
I don't eat grains, so that does not apply to this post. Actually, the most commonly reported plant food allergies stem from certain plant foods in their cooked form, just like how most dairy allergies stem from pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (no matter what your position is on raw dairy, that's a simple fact).
I agree about the issue of pasteurised dairy being more allergenic than raw dairy. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence in RVAF diet groups showing that people have varying sensitivities to dairy with almost everyone suffering to some extent from pasteurised dairy, but others seemingly doing fine on the raw(grassfed) version. I've read that AGEs(advanced glycation end products), found in all cooked foods, are 200 times more "immunoreactive" suggesting a possible higher tendency to cause allergies.
And that's great. If you experience good health by doing so, then keep on doing it, but I have experienced better health since I added in some raw plant fats and fruits/raw honey because my body REQUIRES it for my level of fitness. I need an insulin spike after I finish working out to promote protein synthesis and pull my body out of catabolism. I have done zero carb long enough to 'adapt' to it (for about a year when I properly calculate it) and my health WAS declining, along with my fitness goals. I am a big believer in raw animal food and that is the foundation of my diet, but my body requires fruit and honey in order to function. Nuts are not essential, but every now and then I will take a handful and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as dried fruit goes, well, it depends on what kind of dried fruit you're eating. I consume goji berries almost daily (it is one of my main sources of plant antioxidants), which are sun dried and they don't spike my blood sugar violently. In fact, many people find that they actually help balance blood sugar levels, as I too have found. Other than that, the only dried fruit I consume is right before or after powerlifting. Dried fruit won't harm me because, like I said above, I NEED to spike my insulin levels after exercising in order to hault catabolism. A heavy, high fat, no/very low carb meal will NOT immediately pull your body out of a catabolic state by spiking insulin levels, driving glucose and amino acids into muscle cells (this can happen because 1. insulin sensitivity is increased after heavy exercises and 2. glycogen stores are depleted, so nutrients will go to muscle cells rather than fat cells). The fact is, for very active athletes like me, sugar from fruit and honey IS needed. I would have to question some of the raw paleo dieters who believe all sugar is evil, if they are truly active, like our raw paleo ancestors were, because it is hard as hell to lift huge rocks and logs and hike/run up mountains on a zero carb diet. I am saying this from first hand experience. Anyway, I don't want to come across as some hard-head who is bashing other peoples diets. I am just raising some interesting questions.
Cthulhu
Yes, that's the big hurdle re zero-carb diets. I found I simply couldn't do any serious exercise on zero-carb and things just worsened in that regard as time went on during my past ZC trials.
-
Almonds are moot, as recently in the U.S.A. they were added to the list of things not permitted to be sold raw.
-
Yea that's true. Each state has different laws requiring a certain degree to pasteurize nuts. From what I understand nuts are shelled in boiling water & Pasteurized through hot steam.
-
Almonds are moot, as recently in the U.S.A. they were added to the list of things not permitted to be sold raw.
Not true. You cannot buy raw almonds from a company that bags/processes them, but, thanks to a legal loophole, you can buy raw almonds directly from a farm or imported raw almonds. When I do eat nuts, I am able to buy imported raw Hunza nuts (organic). I mostly just buy raw macadamia nuts because they have a high saturated fat content and I do better on them than other nuts that are higher in protein and lower in fat.
-
You can get raw almonds from Jaffe bros. and nuts online. I think Macs have a higher percentage of mufas.
-
Hey Cthulhu, I liked your post. I workout 5x a week about 2+ hours each(bjj & thai) workout & I do 3 days of lifting (5-3-1 method). If I don't eat a banana in between workouts or after. My muscles cramp up. I carb cycle as well. Glad to know I'm not the only one in this forum who's down with the PWO insulin spike lol.
-
Thanks for the input, Cthulhu. I think we covered almonds/nuts pretty thoroughly and I don't want to beat it to death, so I'll call it a wrap if you don't mind.
Re: exercising on ZC, I believe those who say they've had problems with it--and Lance Armstrong is an example of someone who performs very well on an extremely high carb diet, perhaps because he burns so many calories so fast (buyer beware: I don't know what long-term effects he might get from eating so many refined, processed modern foods, and he did already get cancer, so I'm not recommending his approach, just acknowledging the performance results). For whatever reason, my own ability and desire to exercise has actually been going up on raw carnivore, so I guess I lucked out. I'm certainly not knocking it. :D And I don't notice any shorter recovery time. Actually, my muscles don't seem to stay sore as long as they used to.
For any interested, I asked Charles about his recovery and performance on ZC and he gave a very different picture than what Tyler perceived (and I had perceived basically the same picture that Tyler had, but he gave a somewhat complex explanation about what he really meant that I think I understand--if you want more details on Charles' view, please ask him, as I don't want to get into relaying messages between people and trying to represent other's views, neither of which ever works well for me).
-
Thanks for the input, Cthulhu. I think we covered almonds/nuts pretty thoroughly and I don't want to beat it to death, so I'll call it a wrap if you don't mind.
Re: exercising on ZC, I believe those who say they've had problems with it--and Lance Armstrong is an example of someone who performs very well on an extremely high carb diet, perhaps because he burns so many calories so fast (buyer beware: I don't know what long-term effects he might get from eating so many refined, processed modern foods, and he did already get cancer, so I'm not recommending his approach, just acknowledging the performance results). For whatever reason, my own ability and desire to exercise has actually been going up on raw carnivore, so I guess I lucked out. I'm certainly not knocking it. :D And I don't notice any shorter recovery time. Actually, my muscles don't seem to stay sore as long as they used to.
For any interested, I asked Charles about his recovery and performance on ZC and he gave a very different picture than what Tyler perceived (and I had perceived basically the same picture that Tyler had, but he gave a somewhat complex explanation about what he really meant that I think I understand--if you want more details on Charles' view, please ask him, as I don't want to get into relaying messages between people and trying to represent other's views, neither of which ever works well for me).
I agree, but, like you already said, Lance Armstrong's diet is high in processed carbohydrates, not healthy carbohydrates. You can't even begin to compare gatorade to wild, raw honey. Scientists still have not yet discovered all of the nutrients in bee products. Also, keep in mind that insulin resistance doesn't just happen out of the blue. People become insulin resistant because of the damage they have done to their pancreas by eating highly refined carbohydrates that are hard to digest and because they do not exercise much. If you are truly active, like our paleo ancestors were, then insulin sensitivity is dramatically increased, therefore your body can handle carbohydrates much better. My muscles don't stay sore much longer than they used to, although, on my very hard powerlifting days, I look forward to being a little sore because it's usually a sign that shows me I have exercised hard enough and did the exercise right. But I don't get sore like I used to, mostly because of raw meat/fat, not so much my carbohydrate intake. I am not sure what Tylers level of fitness is. He may be pretty active, but I don't know if he is a bodybuilder or powerlifter. This is a different class of fitness. If he is a powerlifter and claims to be able to bench or deadlift an extreme amount of weight on a zero carb diet, then I do not know how that would be scientifically possible since extreme athletes REQUIRE insulin spikes, otherwise their body would be more prone to catabolism and they would lose msucle tissue, along with strength, thus defeating their overall fitness goals. If someone can remain active on a very low carbohydrate diet and it works for them, then great. But it's a time tested fact that extreme athletes require plenty of carbohydrates, otherwise it would be common to see a zero carb dieter deadlift 1000 pounds easily.
-
Thanks for the info. I'm not an extreme exerciser like Lance Armstrong or an extreme lifter/body-builder, so if a (near) raw carnivore diet only hinders extreme levels of performance, then that's fine with me. I'll defer to your knowledge when it comes to those things, and if extreme athletes ever asked me for advice, I would refer them to more knowledgeable people like you.
-
Hey Cthulhu, I liked your post. I workout 5x a week about 2+ hours each(bjj & thai) workout & I do 3 days of lifting (5-3-1 method). If I don't eat a banana in between workouts or after. My muscles cramp up. I carb cycle as well. Glad to know I'm not the only one in this forum who's down with the PWO insulin spike lol.
I experience the same thing as well. When I wake up in the morning and eat breakfast, I have to eat enough healthy carbohydrates or else my lifts in the gym will suffer. It's just a simple fact that glycogen is a muscles main fuel source, not protein or fat. It is the most basic, readily form of energy and that is what athletes need. In fact, trying to build a good amount of muscle is self-defeating in the long run without some foundation of energy coming from carbohydrates because if you're not spiking your insulin after working out hard, your body will REMAIN in a catabolic state where muscle tissue will be consumed for energy, not glycogen. At this point, it would be a waste of time lifting weights and/or trying to build muscle. You see, insulin is like a gun. It can be used for good things or bad things. It is not an "evil" hormone. Insulin is a very powerful tool to help athletes reach their fitness goals - it just gets absued a lot by the average SADer who is not active and eats the wrong kinds of carbs. One thing some of us lifters do who want to cycle our carbs is eat five days very low carb (under 30 grams a day) and on the last two days of the week consume a high amount of carbs (to refill depleated glycogen stores). You'd have to do two or three weeks (from what I remember) of very low carb dieting (under 30 grams a day) so that your body is well adapted to burning fat for fuel, then that's when you do the carb cycling with 5 low carb days and 2 high carb days. I often recommend this to the people I train with, including the newbie natural bodybuilders/powerlifters. The diet is called "The Anabolic Diet", I believe. Most cooked food eaters do it, but all you have to do is adjust it for your raw paleo lifestyle. This is a great alternative to the more carb sensitive crowed and you will see your lifts go through the roof. In fact, I might go back to this way of eating for a little while because it has been very good to me. Nevertheless, the truth is carbohydrates, in the natural form of fruit and honey, is healthy and essential to most athletes.
Cthulhu
-
Yea I'm familiar with The Anabolic Diet. Read about it on T-mag. Which is a good site, if you can get past some of the brain wash Biotest fan boys.
-
But I don't get sore like I used to, mostly because of raw meat/fat, not so much my carbohydrate intake. I am not sure what Tylers level of fitness is. He may be pretty active, but I don't know if he is a bodybuilder or powerlifter. This is a different class of fitness. If he is a powerlifter and claims to be able to bench or deadlift an extreme amount of weight on a zero carb diet, then I do not know how that would be scientifically possible since extreme athletes REQUIRE insulin spikes, otherwise their body would be more prone to catabolism and they would lose msucle tissue, along with strength, thus defeating their overall fitness goals. If someone can remain active on a very low carbohydrate diet and it works for them, then great. But it's a time tested fact that extreme athletes require plenty of carbohydrates, otherwise it would be common to see a zero carb dieter deadlift 1000 pounds easily.
Actually, Paleophil was talking about Charles of zerocarbage.com fame. I am one of those who had to quit zero-carb for health-reasons(and because I couldn't lift weights or do sports to any genuine extent while avoiding absolutely all carbs). Re PP's mention of me:-I think (?) that's to do with when I mentioned something a while back re Charles having stated that he took longer to recover from marathons as a result of going for a (cooked)ZC diet, - I'd thought that it was Lex who'd stated this, though, not PP. It was definitely a ZCer.
-
".....if you can get past some of the brain wash Biotest fan boys."
That's one reason why I left the website.
-
Actually, Paleophil was talking about Charles of zerocarbage.com fame. I am one of those who had to quit zero-carb for health-reasons(and because I couldn't lift weights or do sports to any genuine extent while avoiding absolutely all carbs). Re PP's mention of me:-I think (?) that's to do with when I mentioned something a while back re Charles having stated that he took longer to recover from marathons as a result of going for a (cooked)ZC diet, - I'd thought that it was Lex who'd stated this, though, not PP. It was definitely a ZCer.
Ahh, okay. I got a little mixed up here with names, since I am still somewhat new to the forum. That explains it. How much do you lift every week?
-
Ahh, okay. I got a little mixed up here with names, since I am still somewhat new to the forum. That explains it. How much do you lift every week?
Oh, I don't do weightlifting any more(except for the mass of food I bring home from farmers' markets which weigh a ton!). I prefer doing bodyweight training as I'm more convinced that it leads to more functional strength(I tend to make the pressups etc. more difficult by doing them from a chair etc.)
I used to do weightlifting two or three times a week, up to a couple of years ago, something like seven or so different types of exercises, 3 sets at a time. My one problem always was that, given my body build, squats were incredibly easy and my legs became super-powerful, but the rest of my body took much more effort to improve.
-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/my-merge-with-raw-paleo/msg18226/#msg18226
In fact, trying to build a good amount of muscle is self-defeating in the long run without some foundation of energy coming from carbohydrates
I have what I hope is a simple solution for everyone. If you don't benefit from a raw "ZC" or carnivorous diet, don't eat it. I do benefit, better so far than on anything I've tried (inclusing such benefits as increased strength and energy, some substantial straightening of my spine in less than 2 months, marvelous feelings of well being after each meal, etc.--and believe me, I tried every other level of carbs from very low to very high), so I eat it. I don't expect many people to emulate what Lex Rooker and I do. To each their own and everyone wins.
Re: Charles, if anyone wants to know why he thinks he performs better overall athletically on ZC than some carbs you can find his forum at http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com. I'd rather not get in the middle of a debate between other people. Just thought people should know that he gives a different perspective on it than the impression I got from Tyler's recollection. I'm not into extreme/serious athletics anyway, so it's irrelevant to my needs.
-
How many athletes has really tested ZC to the end? I would expect no normal athlete would, because they notice how detrimental it is to them, in the beginning. And how many would go for it, if not having a real good reason to do it. The only good study a have seen is the one on charles forum, where they concluded that, there were no bigg difference, apart from sprinting capabilities. And think this was only up to 4 or was it 8 weeks..
-
How many athletes has really tested ZC to the end? I would expect no normal athlete would, because they notice how detrimental it is to them, in the beginning. And how many would go for it, if not having a real good reason to do it. The only good study a have seen is the one on charles forum, where they concluded that, there were no bigg difference, apart from sprinting capabilities. And think this was only up to 4 or was it 8 weeks..
I think there are 2 Italian athletes(bikers) who tried raw ZC long-term and found it wanting re performance.
-
How many athletes has really tested ZC to the end? I would expect no normal athlete would, because they notice how detrimental it is to them, in the beginning. And how many would go for it, if not having a real good reason to do it. The only good study a have seen is the one on charles forum, where they concluded that, there were no bigg difference, apart from sprinting capabilities. And think this was only up to 4 or was it 8 weeks..
It looks like they mostly do it wrong, in that they increase food to match physical exertion, while Phinney has shown that this is a mistake, and it is /b/fat[/b] that must be increased, while supplementing with sodium and postassium, but never meat. If I read it right.
The confusion comes from the account of Arctic travellers with Inuit, where they write first accurately that they carried mostly fat on their travels, but later they write "meat".
See: Phinney, S. “Ketogenic diets and physical performance”, Nutrition & Metabolism, 2004, 1:2. on the internet here:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2
-
Stephen D Phinney does suggest "one caveat that anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics." ["Ketogenic diets and physical performance," Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2]
Dr. Harris of PaNu claims that carbs are not essential for athletes, but he does acknowledge that "a moderate carb load" may be necessary for lengthy aerobic activity, which is a view similar to that of Loren Cordain's. [Harris, Kurt G. "There are no essential carbohydrates, even for athletes," Monday, May 18, 2009 at 4:38PM, http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/month/may-2009]
The divergence on anaerobic vs. aerobic between these two is interesting. Then there's the mammoth hunters. I don't have the article at hand, but I read somewhere (and my sister recalls it too) that the bones of Stone Age mammoth hunters were tested and they were found to have the same composition as wolves. In other words, carnivorous and essentially ZC. Not surprising, given the massive amount of meat and fat that mammoths provided them. Hunting mammoths and carting their massive flesh home and the massive bones that they used to build their homes out of (I've seen modern men carrying just the tusks and it took two men to carry a single mammoth tusk) seems like it would require a lot of strength and effort. That would seem to require enough athletic performance to satisfy most people today, wouldn't it?
-
The bone-analysis theory though seems to be in a lot of trouble. For example, there was that study a few years back which tried to claim that Neanderthals ate an all-meat diet consisting of mostly meat from large wild game such as mammoths. The study was subsequently found to be totally flawed with Neanderthals shown as having eaten a wide variety of plant foods as well as eating a variety of wild game not just the large mammals.
-
Well I'm open to whatever works for me, so if I ever reach a point where I can't do some athletic activity without carbs, I'll try adding them and see if I can handle them without negative effects.
-
My 1st ever No carb day. I thought I would be tired & cranky but I feel normal. Hopefully I can keep it up tomorrow. I think I'll try it for a week & see if I can cope with it.
I didn't eat much at all today though
2oz buffalo jerky
1lb ground beef w/ 1 egg
4 oz cheese(didn't bring lunch with me to work because I thought I wouldn't be hungry.) Next time I'll make more jerky & bring it with me just in case.
I haven't worked out in a month because I've been working nights & my sleep pattern is all messed up. So since I'm not training I figured I should try to stick with ZC/VLC. Might be easier to transition that way. I think I'll keep my Carbs low at 30g max. Except for training days in which I'll ingest a high carb meal after training to help with recovery.
-
Another ZC day for me.This time I made 1lb of homemade fatty jerky(let it dry for one hour)to work. I left the fat in it cause I know it would be gone in 2days. Thank god I had it at hand. I started getting some carb cravings. All in all my energy seems normal. I think it's because I carbed cycle in the past. So that helps. Next week I'll start working out again & see how it effects my workouts.
-3/4 lb fatty beef jerky
-half lb raw ground beef w 1 raw egg
-6 oz of raw cheese(yes I know it's not paleo, but I have alot left over & it's hard for me to just let it go to waste
I pretty much just picked all day when I got cravings. Hopefully the cravings will go away & I can stick to 1-3meals a day.
-
It won't work, as you are doing low fat. Cravings will strike.
-
Is there a certain percentage I should follow? I know cravings will strike, that's why I made some jerky out of ground instead of lean cuts. Very rarely is 75% ground available by me. Bone in beef shanks(marrow included) are pretty much my staple. I always ask butcher for the fatty pieces. Even before I decided to go VLC. Raw cheese & egg are about 50:50 (protein:fat). Maybe I am getting around 50:50 in my overall diet right now. Would you suggest snacking on some fat instead of the jerky?
-
50% is too much protein on a ZC diet. I've read that in the absence of carbs, protein starvation can occur when you exceed 40% protein. I think lean ground beef tends to be 40% protein, so even that is too lean.
Instead of using ground beef to make fatty jerky, I make standard lean jerky, but dip the jerky into fat (tallow in my case), or eat a gob of fat and then a piece of jerky, or eat several gobs of fat followed by a bunch of jerky.
Since raw is advocated here, I'm trying to move toward eating more of my fat, like suet, raw. One thing I've tried recently that I like is melting some suet in a pan at as low a temp as I can, and then dribbling that fat onto a portion of ground grassfed beef. It tastes great, kind of like a meat donut. As a matter of fact, it probably tastes TOO good and too much like a donut, because things that taste like that tend to be bad for us--which suggests to me that raw is best.
-
William & PaleoPhil, Thanks for the heads up. At the next visit I will ask my butcher for some pure fat. I heard it's free. I'll take a day or two to weigh & calculate calories of my food, so I can make a better judgment in the future.
Since the temp by me is getting colder. Leaving meat out at room temp still taste like it came out the fridge. I bring a pot of water to a rolling boil, turn off heat, put meat inside the strainer & let it sit above the water, and let it steam for about 10seconds. It really warms it up & makes it easier to eat. I know it's the most beneficial to eat straight up raw, but it's to damn cold & makes me crave cook food to much. The marrow this way is freaking delicious, very sweet was like a dessert.
-
I'm not convinced that the 40% protein figure is correct. There've been times when, inadvertently, I had only access to lean, ground beef (while eating no carbfor weeks at a time, not on an official zc trial as such) and similiar lean organs and I didn't have rabbit--starvation issues.
Re adapting to cold:- Most RVAFers report finding that each year or so, their circulation etc. improves as a result of diet so that they continually improve their resistance to cold. If you want something hot that isn't really a breaking of this diet, why not just make some hot water and drink it instead of tea, cooked foods, coffee and the like.
-
I'm not convinced that the 40% protein figure is correct. There've been times when, inadvertently, I had only access to lean, ground beef (while eating no carbfor weeks at a time, not on an official zc trial as such) and similiar lean organs and I didn't have rabbit--starvation issues.
Excellent point, Tyler. I've had the same experience over short periods when I ran out of supplementary fat. I suspect that either a margin of safety is built into the 40% figure or it takes a long time for nonlethal suboptimal protein/fat ratios like that to have negative consequences (which markers like Lex's high a1c level may forecast). There are probably individual variables too, like how much body fat is available to supplement the dietary fat. On the other hand, while 40% protein may not have lethal consequences, I think it is much higher than optimal. Lex, Wartman, Phinney and others have reported benefits from much higher levels and I am seeing the figures gravitate around the 80% fat figure (with a range of around 75 - 85%) for optimal ZC/carnivore results once keto adaptation has occurred.
Re adapting to cold:- Most RVAFers report finding that each year or so, their circulation etc. improves as a result of diet so that they continually improve their resistance to cold. If you want something hot that isn't really a breaking of this diet, why not just make some hot water and drink it instead of tea, cooked foods, coffee and the like.
Another excellent point. I didn't think that tea had any negative effects on me, but when I stopped drinking any other beverages other than water and unsweetened hot and cold tea I noticed that the larger quantities of tea, especially cold tea for some reason, gave me heartburn/reflux. Whereas large quantities of water, raw meat and suet do not have any noticeable negative effects on me. So I think it is good to at least put each element in your diet to the test at some point, by eliminating it and reintroducing it. For me, even seemingly benign things like tea turned out to have negative effects when consumed in significant quantities.
One must of course also be careful to get all the essential nutrients, but even here the standard assumptions can be misleading. For example, the levels of potassium (K) in raw meats are rather low when compared to certain plants, yet based on my symptoms and required supplement levels to resolve symptoms, my body absorbed higher levels of K from raw meats than from the nutrient-rich plants. So in this area I found Lex's experience with a raw meat/fat diet to be a more reliable indicator of actual nutrient absorption than the statistical data on the nutrient composition of various foods. After all, what matters when it comes to nutrients is what we actually absorb, not just what is in the food.
-
Excellent point, Tyler. I've had the same experience over short periods when I ran out of supplementary fat. I suspect that either a margin of safety is built into the 40% figure or it takes a long time for nonlethal suboptimal protein/fat ratios like that to have negative consequences (which markers like Lex's high a1c level may forecast). There are probably individual variables too, like how much body fat is available to supplement the dietary fat. On the other hand, while 40% protein may not have lethal consequences, I think it is much higher than optimal. Lex, Wartman, Phinney and others have reported benefits from much higher levels and I am seeing the figures gravitate around the 80% fat figure (with a range of around 75 - 85%) for optimal ZC/carnivore results once keto adaptation has occurred.
I don't buy that. For example, Lex has mentioned weight-gaining problems when fat-intake is around 80% of calories or above. And then there's the obvious problem that , in Palaeo times, fat-intake was inevitably much lower, given the lack of grainfed meats etc. So, a "healthy" fat-intake should be much, much lower, even on ZC.
-
I don't buy that. For example, Lex has mentioned weight-gaining problems when fat-intake is around 80% of calories or above.
I'll let Lex respond to that one.
And then there's the obvious problem that , in Palaeo times, fat-intake was inevitably much lower, given the lack of grainfed meats etc. So, a "healthy" fat-intake should be much, much lower, even on ZC.
"Inevitably"? I don't buy THAT. I used to lean towards agreeing with Cordain and you on this, but further study of research and others' experiences and my own experience and additional research that has come out recently, such as the Qesem Cave research, points toward higher fat consumption levels via selective hunting of fattier animals and selective consumption of fattier parts of animals during the Stone Age and even among more recent HGs. More confirmatory research is needed, but this is the direction that the evidence is currently pointing. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this at present. I suspect that your view on this is very much in the minority here, but if new evidence arises that supports the low-fat Stone Age meat eating I will consider it (and that doesn't mean old studies or finds from the 1970s that I've probably already reviewed--I mean actual new evidence from recent months and going forward).
-
This is silly. If you were remotely honest, you would have to admit that the low-fat dogma is supremely prevalent in palaeo studies and mainstream scientific theories. The high-fat theory is very rare, and somewhat suspect. Cordain made some very clear points when he knocked down Sally Fallon's absurd diatribe against him, which are, on a scientific level, extremely difficult to dispute. I'm referring to the difficulty wild animals have in getting fatter on a grassfed diet(as opposed to grainfed), the issue of winter and famine etc. etc.Even selective selection of fat doesn't remotely compensate for those factors(and we have to remember that palaeo tribes, were constantly in danger of famine at various times, so that they simply didn't have the regular luxury of being able to select only high-fat organs and the like).
-
This is silly. If you were remotely honest,...
Well if you don't consider me remotely honest on this subject then further discussion is pointless.
-
Tyler you might like to take a position of not needing to win a debate. For this isn't a debate contest. I go both ways. But then the inuit had plenty of fat. The plains indians could selectively kill older fat buffalo, and eat all the marrow, tongue, brains, kidney fat that they would have in every animal. There weren't other sources of carbs out on the plains. It is the indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam that I wonder about. Deer, for instance usually don't have much fat on them. But then again, there aren't too many carbs in the woods year around. People do mention dried acorns and berries, and some roots. But for roots, they had to be cooked. So how did they exist before fire/cooking?
-
It is the indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam that I wonder about. Deer, for instance usually don't have much fat on them. But then again, there aren't too many carbs in the woods year around. People do mention dried acorns and berries, and some roots. But for roots, they had to be cooked. So how did they exist before fire/cooking?
There were other animals that were abundant in the woods of North America besides deer. Wild turkeys and other birds were very abundant. There were black bear, as well as a number of smaller mammals like rabbits, squirrel, etc., which, while not having much fat, can be killed easily and in fairly large numbers, and the fat eaten preferentially. Black bears have a LOT of fat on them, particularly in the late summer/fall, and the Indians would often use bear fat as an all-over skin ointment, as well as eating it.
-
and we have to remember that palaeo tribes, were constantly in danger of famine at various times, so that they simply didn't have the regular luxury of being able to select only high-fat organs and the like
That's true
But because of the times when they ate low-fat meals they didn't feal good, were more prone to diseases, etc.
They desperately looked for fat because they knew its importance re health.
-
The mention of the Inuit is the only really undeniable part of the high-fat theory. But few other peoples had access to animals so rich in fatty blubber. I mean, the fat on a 100% grassfed cow(after 5 years of growth) is unlikely to be as much as, say, a walrus or sea-lion of similiar weight, surely? Does anyone have the data re this comparison?
One of the things that I find problematic, though, is that humans have specific cravings for fats and sugars. The standard explanation is that we have those cravings because fats and sugars are rare in the wild. On a personal note, when I'm consuming all that raw marrow most days, I'm acutely aware that this is way more than what I would get in the wild.
-
It's just a simple fact that glycogen is a muscles main fuel source, not protein or fat. It is the most basic, readily form of energy and that is what athletes need. In fact, trying to build a good amount of muscle is self-defeating in the long run without some foundation of energy coming from carbohydrates because if you're not spiking your insulin after working out hard, your body will REMAIN in a catabolic state where muscle tissue will be consumed for energy, not glycogen.
What about intramuscular triglycerides (IMTG)? Here some link - http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa108.htm
Dr. Greg Ellis researched it quite well and they seem to be very good fuel re bodybulding.
You can get quite a lot of muscle mass on VLCKD (research done by Cassandra Forsythe).
-
The bone-analysis theory though seems to be in a lot of trouble. For example, there was that study a few years back which tried to claim that Neanderthals ate an all-meat diet consisting of mostly meat from large wild game such as mammoths. The study was subsequently found to be totally flawed with Neanderthals shown as having eaten a wide variety of plant foods as well as eating a variety of wild game not just the large mammals.
But they ate mainly cooked meat and therefore were prone to arthritis and were overall not so healthy
Mamo Wolde - winner of the marathon at the 1968 Summer Olympics
He ate meat and fat with only 1-2% of carbs.
-
But they ate mainly cooked meat and therefore were prone to arthritis and were overall not so healthy
I never suggested that the Neanderthals were healthy.
Mamo Wolde - winner of the marathon at the 1968 Summer Olympics
He ate meat and fat with only 1-2% of carbs.
The only claim I've ever heard of re ZC athletes is that Mamo Wolde claim. He's no longer alive to corroborate the claim so I'm rather suspicious to say the least. And the traditional Ethiopian diet contains plenty of vegetables:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_cuisine
-
And the traditional Ethiopian diet contains plenty of vegetables:-
It's modern traditional Ehtiopian diet.
Herodot written in 5th century BC that Ethiopians lived off the meat, fat and dairy and their life expectancy was as much as 120 years.
-
It's modern traditional Ehtiopian diet.
Herodot written in 5th century BC that Ethiopians lived off the meat, fat and dairy and their life expectancy was as much as 120 years.
Well, it's the diet of the last few centuries(kitfo and vegetables etc. have been around for very long). As for Herodotus, he's not a reliable historian, I once wholeheartedly believed Herodotus' claim that every Babylonian woman practised a form of sacred prostitution prior to marriage - turned out it was, at least highly exaggerated, or , most likely, completely wrong as an assumption.
-
So I took a break from VLC RAF for the weekend. To celebrate my "no more night work, back to day work." I ate some cooked food Friday night, cooked food Saturday night w/friends, & cooked breakfast w/ my GF Sunday morning.
Big mistake. Saturday morning I felt a little bloated so I just didn't eat till I meet up with my friends at night. Sunday morning I felt okay,until my GF & I made some breakfast. She doesn't know I'm into RAF. So we made breakfast together. I made 3/4lb of sausage for myself(as rare as possible without grossing her out) but she cooked the eggs. It tasted great!
After about an hour it felt like I drank a gallon of water & it lasted all day. I felt a little better when I woke up, but once I went into work & started moving. I got the same feeling. Like I drank to much water, & then started getting hiccups.
Although I'm very disappointed in myself for acting that way. I let my HAPPY emotion get the best of me & derailed a whole week of VLC RAF. I know it's nothing serious w/ my body. I'm guessing I stressed out my stomach to much with the cooked food binge. I'm just going to fast the rest of the day today. I'll start VLC RAF only again tomorrow. I definitely learned my lesson.
-
Back on track. I've cleaned up alot & now after 2months off I'm back to working out. I feel pretty good. I thought I was going to gass quickly rolling Weds night. But I actually felt somewhat normal. My strength was the same but my gass suffered slightly. Not enough to overwhelm me though.
My GF's mother went hunting a while ago & tagged herself a bear. She plans on making it into a carpet & giving out the meat. She ate some & so far swears by it. I can't wait to try it.
(http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr163/danmillz/138de3585fc0__1256538887000.jpg)
-
My GF's mother went hunting a while ago & tagged herself a bear. She plans on making it into a carpet & giving out the meat. She ate some & so far swears by it. I can't wait to try it.
(http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr163/danmillz/138de3585fc0__1256538887000.jpg)
Fat! Lots of fat on a bear at this time of year, and I have a lot of trouble getting pure animal fat. My guess is that this (fall bear) was a traditional source of the fat/tallow used in making pemmican, and is of great value for those of us on a zero carb diet.
What did she do with it? Did you ask for some?
-
She's making a rug out of him. Yea she's going to give me some meat & allot of bones for my dogs. I'll try to convince her for extra fatty cuts. She ate some so far & she loves it. I have yet to try it.
-
I go both ways. But then the inuit had plenty of fat. The plains indians could selectively kill older fat buffalo, and eat all the marrow, tongue, brains, kidney fat that they would have in every animal. There weren't other sources of carbs out on the plains. It is the indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam that I wonder about. Deer, for instance usually don't have much fat on them. But then again, there aren't too many carbs in the woods year around. People do mention dried acorns and berries, and some roots. But for roots, they had to be cooked. So how did they exist before fire/cooking?
Maybe they drank the animals' blood when they killed it. Blood is supposed to have a high concentration of Vitamin D, which has fat I believe. Blood doesn't seem to have fat to me, but it must. Wild animals in cold weather may have a lot more fat in their blood. Maybe they wouldn't have to drink it all right away. Another link I found on the forum here said blood can be allowed to dry in bowls and then eaten.
-
Aieee! This really violates my animal-rights ethos! I mean, wild hares are 1 thing but bears! I remember a terrible, recent story about Bruno the Bear being killed in Germany as a result of a retard of a German minister who wanted to kill that bear at all costs merely because the bear wanted to ruffle through garbage left by humans in various areas. Yes, I know it's "palaeo" etc., but, really, can't we have some compassion for some of the few wild species we still have. Wild hares may still be in abundance, but bears are in a tiny minority, and it's absolutely criminal to kill them, IMO.
*This sort of thing almost makes me go raw vegan*
-
Bears are not a tiny minority where I live, and while not considered a pest, they sometimes deliberately kill someone. When this happens, it is the custom to kill every bear that might have done it.
The German minister was right.
The Indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam got all the fat they needed for the winter from bears; all of them are obese in the fall. It seems that DR is not aware of this, as he could have asked for pure fat, and that is not intramuscular, it's under the skin.
-
Yeah, relax Tyler. Not all bears are in a tiny minority. Just a few years ago I sampled bear meat from a black bear that had charged my brother-in-law and he it shot not far from his house. There are MORE bears in his neighborhood today than there were then and there are so many now here in VT that there have been problems, in part because there are not as many hunters as there used to be (http://www.scenesofvermont.com/blackbears.html). The youths are not continuing the tradition of hunting to the extent of the earlier generations (instead they're playing video games and watching TV).
-
Bears are problematic by me. They constantly come into towns scavenging through stuff. From what I believe the NJ bear hunting season is still new(maybe 3 or so years ago, it was open)
Well, it's not like this bear was killed for no reason. We are eating it's meat & using his fur.
-
Yeah, a lot of the Northeastern states have had growing populations of bear, deer, coyotes, racoons, etc., because there are so few hunters these days and the voters won't let the rangers trap or shoot the animals either, so they overpopulate and slowly starve to death, and end up entering the suburbs looking for food, out of desperation (and hopefully eat some of the idiots who voted against culling their numbers). Damn those misguided do-gooders!
Granted, we've got too many humans too, but at least the #'s of human births in this country have been going down.
Glad you're using lots of the animal. That's the best way to do it, in my opinion. I wouldn't fish unless I was eating what I caught and using as much of it as I could manage. Same goes for when I start hunting. No sport/trophy hunting for me. Only so-called "subsistence" hunting.
-
I disagree re the notion that one should kill any animal that kills a human or scavenges through human rubbish. The sole reason for wild animals going through rubbish is because much of their traditional prey is killed off by humans and their environment is impoverished by continued human exploitation of the land. It would be better for humans to be killed off instead. That way, there'd be less threat to endangered species etc.
As for the issue of killing animals that kill humans, I always remember John Aspinall pointing out, more or less, that there are only something like 700 mountain gorillas compared to 7(now?) billion humans , which means that 1 mountain gorilla is worth 10 million human lives. So, on that basis, one shouldn't be allowed to hunt and kill 1 mountain gorilla until 10 million human lives have been lost as a result of mountain gorillas killing them. Same principle applies to other wild animals.
Here's a quotation from Aspinall:-
" “The sanctity of human life is the most dangerous sophistry ever propagated by philosophy and it is all too well rooted. Because if it means anything it means the in-sanctity of species which are not human.”
There is 1 good point in that that bear was killed for food. Killing for the purpose of getting a trophy would be another matter.
I suppose one reason why North Americans seem more blase about this issue than me is because you still have a decent network of large national parks in some areas(though you've still got problems with over-exploitation of land). In my own case, as a European, I am deeply ashamed of the fact that most wild areas(especially in the UK) have been largely wiped out, with only corner-pockets here and there still left(and much of that isn't even truly wild, being "managed" by humans. It's the case that people appreciate something far more when they realise it's virtually no longer available, which is why I'm rather militant on the issue and react badly to standard European news items of farmers or hunters killing endangered lynxes and bears or protesting against the reintroduction of species previously killed off(there are some fools who still protest against the proposals to reintroduce wolves and bears into the UK, for example).
Simply put, as long as human life is valued more than animal-life, we're going to see the eventual extinction of most species, other than a few domesticated ones.And that would be a shame.
The claim that we are reducing our population (if only in the future - currently, world human population is rising) doesn't really mean anything. As we've seen, humans have been becoming ever more adept at exploiting their environment, so that in 200 years time, say, 1 human being will be able to do far more damage to the environment than 1 human being of today, simply due to possessing more advanced technology etc.
*Sorry for preaching. I realise I probably sound very extremist on this issue, I just thought this is a point that had to be made.
-
as a green anarchist, i agree with tyler for the most part. but, the black bear killed in question is not really an endangered species. from what i can tell they're thriving in many places in the US. furthermore, it wasnt just killed for sport, it was killed for food. i don't see anything wrong with this particular incident, but tyler is on the money with his general spiel. we've gotta respect wild animals and the environment way more in order to survive as a species.
-
as a green anarchist, i agree with tyler for the most part. but, the black bear killed in question is not really an endangered species. from what i can tell they're thriving in many places in the US. furthermore, it wasnt just killed for sport, it was killed for food. i don't see anything wrong with this particular incident, but tyler is on the money with his general spiel. we've gotta respect wild animals and the environment way more in order to survive as a species.
Well, bears as a whole, throughout the world, are definitely not thriving, so the fact that bears are thriving in a very few areas isn't all that relevant. I'd understand it if they relocated brown bears from North America to Europe, say, but otherwise it doesn't make sense. And current wildlife populations are microscopic by comparison to the levels of wildlife as little as 500 years ago.Realistically, what we need is WWIII - look at what happened when humans fled from Czernobyl - the wildlife in the area started exploding in numbers, purely because there was no human exploitation of the environment any more.
I seriously believe that if we go on as we do now, we'll end up in a few centuries with urban parks containing just 1 tree etc.
-
as a green anarchist, i agree with tyler for the most part. but, the black bear killed in question is not really an endangered species. from what i can tell they're thriving in many places in the US. furthermore, it wasnt just killed for sport, it was killed for food. i don't see anything wrong with this particular incident, but tyler is on the money with his general spiel. we've gotta respect wild animals and the environment way more in order to survive as a species.
Yup. I agree with all that 100%. I am also a fairly radical environmentalist too (someone labeled me with the most extreme of Green environmentalist monikers, but I've forgotten it now) and get harassed quite a bit for not consuming as much crap like expensive cars and clothes as is expected in today's society and not throwing stuff out while it still has some use and value just because it's not "in fashion," but I see no problem with killing that black bear as long as it was eaten. As a matter of fact, given the current shortage of food and habitat for black bears in the US, and the fact that they're not anywhere near being endangered (as I recall, there are more black bears today than there were a century ago), it's actually a responsible thing to do. The fact that the hide will also be used is even better. We've got to return to using ALL parts of the animals. People should wear hides, furs, etc., more, not less like PETA wants--as long as the meat is also eaten and as long as the animals involved are not endangered. The problem occurs when animals are hunted or farmed for just their furs or just their livers, etc. The aim should always be to use as much of the animal as possible.
The HG lifestyle was the last reasonably sustainable lifestyle on earth. As the saying goes, "Begin with the end in mind." If humans are ever to live sustainably again they will need to move closer to that ancient HG way of life, probably incorporating a few ideas from the last 1% of human existence too, as even the HG lifestyle did result in the extermination of much of the megafauna. It may take 1000 years, but somehow humanity will have to return to something approximating the HG lifestyle, though it can never return to things exactly as they once were (for one thing, the mammoths are gone forever--unless they can be resurrected with DNA manipulation). There really is no choice, unfortunately. The agrarian lifestyle is just not sustainable and will destroy humanity if it continues indefinitely.
Is this an example of Paleo-re-enactment for the sake of re-enactment? No, it's an example of Paleo emulation for the sake of human survival, likely taking centuries to accomplish, if it's even possible. So it's not a utopian outlook, it's a pessimistic one, and unfortunately I think it's realistic. I'd be happy to hear easier alternatives, but all those I've heard so far are wildly overoptimistic, in my opinion. We are facing the catch 22 that the only way to live sustainably and healthfully for humans is to eat the flesh of animals (and some plants) and use their hides and bones as raw materials, while at the same time there are too many humans to feed and clothe with animal products.
1 mountain gorilla is worth 10 million human lives. So, on that basis, one shouldn't be allowed to hunt and kill 1 mountain gorilla until 10 million human lives have been lost as a result of mountain gorillas killing them.
Good luck with that. ;) Fortunately, no one advocated in this thread killing mountain gorillas or any other endangered species.
-
Good luck with that. ;) Fortunately, no one advocated in this thread killing mountain gorillas or any other endangered species.
The American black bear in North America numbers , at maximum estimate, 914,000. That means that 1 American black bear is worth c.450+ human lives(300 mill humans for the US(?) , 26 for Canada and 140(?) for Mexico. Of course, black bears were in even greater numbers before humans moved in, and quite substantial until the modern era.
-
there are too many humans
We can reduce the population voluntarily (not likely to ever happen on a large scale due to human psychological structure) or it will be imposed on us eventually.
-
We can reduce the population voluntarily (not likely to ever happen on a large scale due to human psychological structure) or it will be imposed on us eventually.
those are two of the three options i can think of. the last one being that population will be reduced because the earth can not physically support this many people. in my opinion, we have already over shot the earth's human population threshold; what goes up must come down. i don't think we'll have any kind of choice (besides your option of voluntary reduction)
-
If your third option is that we will die back due to environmentally imposed factors, then that's only 2 options, which is what I meant: we can only cooperate or go down kicking and screaming (or shaking and wheezing in this case).
We are the only organisms who have learned to control procreation (yes, I know, goldfish and lemmings have biologically induced population-control mechanisms, but they are not consciously invoked.)
Voluntarily limiting procreation is counterpoised to individualism, which is why it won't take place on a large scale. Though voluntarily limiting reproduction is more common in developed nations where self-actualization is easier to achieve, there are so many many people for whom splitting (and I do mean that in the broadest sense) through reproduction is the only satisfying means of psychological integration available. The less resources there are, the more children there will be because existential anxiety will increase.
Children are desireable; when they are not, population will decline.
Genuinely accidental conceptions and imposed reproduction through violence are nearly insignificant factors in population growth.
This is why, IMO, union with god - not an earthly spouse - is the theme of all enlightening religions.
Have at me ;)
-
there are too many humans
I cannot agree. There are too many of the race of Man. Humans have never been numerous, IMO.
Population control is already successfully and involuntarily practiced in Canada; it was done by herding people off the land (which supports life (farms, traplines, Indian reservations etc.)) and into the stinking concrete jungles called cities.
City folk don't breed well, and never have.
-
The American black bear in North America numbers , at maximum estimate, 914,000. That means that 1 American black bear is worth c.450+ human lives(300 mill humans for the US(?) , 26 for Canada and 140(?) for Mexico. Of course, black bears were in even greater numbers before humans moved in, and quite substantial until the modern era.
what do you mean worth so many human lives?
-
If your third option is that we will die back due to environmentally imposed factors, then that's only 2 options, which is what I meant: we can only cooperate or go down kicking and screaming (or shaking and wheezing in this case).
ah, i assumed you meant that the government would 'impose' population control. i was just trying to suggest that the environment itself will 'impose' control but i see that that's what you were getting at. we're on the same page now
-
I cannot agree. There are too many of the race of Man. Humans have never been numerous, IMO.
Heh, from the perspective of the San Bushmen ("the real people"), Cherokee ("the human beings"), etc. I suppose you're right. We moderners have a ways to go before we can earn that name again. At least the Kogi call us "Younger Brother" and they're trying to teach us, so there may be hope for us yet.
I don't advocate forced population control, but the irony of voluntary population control (and forced control put into effect by only SOME of the world's nations) is that those who choose not to engage in it will outpopulate those who do. For instance, the Islamic nations are currently growing at far faster rates than China (forced population control by one nation) and the West (voluntary population control). So there's no easy solution, in my view, unfortunately.
-
those who choose not to engage in it will outpopulate those who do
That won't concern anyone who has integrated his personality and lived fully, joyfully, and humbly without reproducing. His work is completed upon death. Nirvana / Moksha: release from rebirth
I mean rebirth in the real sense of having reproduced, not in the abstract (and to my thinking ridiculous) sense of coming back to life.
I think I'm derailing this person's journal!
Interesting discussion, though.
Namaste!
-
what do you mean worth so many human lives?
I was pointing to Aspinall's claim that since we are the stewards of this planet we have an obligation to treat other (wild)species with respect and grant them sanctity of life like humans, more or less. Since as Kingsley Amis said "More means worse"(ie the greater the number the lower the quality/value), it follows that gorillas or lynxes or other species with lower numbers than humans have a greater corresponding value vis-avis the planet Earth than humans do. Therefore, humans shouldn't kill such wild species unless the deaths inflicted on humans by the relevant species equals or exceeds the equivalent harm done by humans to that particular species. So, if a mountain gorilla is worth 10 million human lives(made by dividing the world human population by the total number of mountain gorillas in the wild) , mountain gorillas shouldn't be killed off by poachers etc. until 10 million human lives have been lost to marauding mountain gorillas.
-
So do you not eat any wild animal/sea foods, Tyler?
-
So do you not eat any wild animal/sea foods, Tyler?
Touche. But, in my defence, I don't generally eat endangered wild animals. I mean, there must be many, many millions of wild hares in the whole world, so that it's less of an issue, more a question of simple predation rather than killing off important species. Same goes for raw oysters/mussels which are in widespread abundance(even wild deer numbers are getting very large now). My take on this is that some key species,particularly the larger mammals at the top of the food-chain(eg:- wolves/bears/lions/great white sharks) are far more essential to the worldwide ecosystem than others so that they should be carefully spared. And, of course, since the vast majority of people eat only domesticated meats, I can just about get away with it as I'm in a tiny minority of wildgame-eaters and the practice is just about sustainable. Though, of course,the obvious solution is to massively reduce the numbers of humans. The only realistic way I can see that happening for it to be meaningful is for a massive war involving ABC-type weapons.
Also, I would like to see much, much larger national parks created in which human interference was minimal to nonexistent.
-
of course,the obvious solution is to massively reduce the numbers of humans. The only realistic way I can see that happening for it to be meaningful is for a massive war involving ABC-type weapons.
Also, I would like to see much, much larger national parks created in which human interference was minimal to nonexistent.
The overpopulation problem has been solved in Canada & U.S.A, and much of Europe where the previous dominant whites are being replaced. China is also urbanizing, so that will end it's problem. Agribusiness is being extended to the rest of the world by way of the imperialist wars in Iraq and I assume Afghanistan; the resultant poisoning (xeno-estrogens) will also reduce the need for war.
There's also the possibility that the current swine flu is part of a binary weapon intended to cull the unwanted.
National parks I have seen are really just tree farms. Monocultures. Sad, but greed has no limits.
-
Touche. But, in my defence, I don't generally eat endangered wild animals. ...
Nor do I, and the black bear is not endangered, so I think we are basically on the same page. Could it be that you are put off by the idea of eating "Smokey Bear," like the way some people will eat wild salmon, boar, deer or near-wild bison, but won't eat wild seal or whale species that are not endangered because of all the negative associations from Green Peace ads and the like, or certain taboo domestic animals (like dogs) that other cultures eat?
Unfortunately, I think increased future war and starvation is probably inevitable as the soils become increasingly depleted by monoculture agriculture (past soil depletions and exhaustions led to wars and empire collapses) and nations fight over increasingly scarce foods amidst a growing world population. The green revolution of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and bioengineering can only partially offset the soil depletion effects.
-
Nor do I, and the black bear is not endangered, so I think we are basically on the same page. Could it be that you are put off by the idea of eating "Smokey Bear," like the way some people will eat wild salmon, boar, deer or near-wild bison, but won't eat wild seal or whale species that are not endangered because of all the negative associations from Green Peace ads and the like, or certain taboo domestic animals (like dogs) that other cultures eat?
Seals are generally universally endangered, as are, definitely, all whales. I suppose it's a matter of how one defines the term "endangered". My own stance would be to determine the numbers of wildlife present before the major whaling-hunts began(c.200-300? years ago), and leave them at that level.
My main point is that the top-level carnivores/mammals, such as wolves/bears/great whites/whales, are absolutely essential to the food-chain, far more so than most other species, so that killing those off harms the environment FAR more than any others. So, my krill-oil-usage is far, far less harmful than killing a bear etc.
As regards domesticated animals, that is another example of human abuse. I mean, in order to stop those domesticated animals from overpopulating, humans have to sterilise(castrate/spay) most of them(which is extremely inhumane), most such domesticated breeds are far more inbred(and therefore genetically-defective) than wild species and should therefore, mostly, be put down -plus they wipe out local wildlife. For my own part, I would forbid almost all domestication of animals as pets.
An additional reason for my not wanting to eat bear, is that they are at the pinnacle of the mammalian revolution. Not only are they one of the strongest mammals, butalso one of the more intelligent. I consider it conceivable that, in an alternate scenario/alien world, ursine creatures might have attained sentience instead of primates.
-
Seals are generally universally endangered, as are, definitely, all whales. I suppose it's a matter of how one defines the term "endangered". My own stance would be to determine the numbers of wildlife present before the major whaling-hunts began(c.200-300? years ago), and leave them at that level.
That is not the generally accepted term for endangered and was not what I meant by it. I think sustainable forms of hunting and management should be allowed as long as the populations continue to grow and are not considered endangered or threatened or even "near threatened," by the scientific criteria generally used, rather than by your historical criterion. So that's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on I guess.
I think hunters should be educated to engage in ethical, sustainable hunting that uses as much of the animal as possible (so wolves should only be killed to control imbalances or avoid public backlash against them that might lead to vigilante killing of them, for example, since not much of wolves is of much use other than trophies and adornment) and does not threaten the survival of the hunted species, and trophy hunting should be discouraged. Do you consider it OK to hunt wild deer, water buffalo, whales, seal, and other large fauna when "ethical" forms of hunting are employed?
My main point is that the top-level carnivores/mammals, such as wolves/bears/great whites/whales, are absolutely essential to the food-chain, far more so than most other species, so that killing those off harms the environment FAR more than any others. So, my krill-oil-usage is far, far less harmful than killing a bear etc.
Banning all hunting and management of the larger fauna is the equivalent of trying to circumvent the food chain and in the modern world can result in distortions, such as decimation of prey species in a given area, starvation, disease, etc., due to imbalances in animal populations. Most environmental and governmental organizations understand this. We agree that predators and large fauna should be preserved, we just apparently disagree on how to go about this. A blind, arbitrary ban on all hunting of all species of bears until they reach pre-modern levels (which they cannot, since there will be die-off from starvation and disease before then) seems unrealistic to me. If hunting is banned, then taxpayers will have to pay rangers to periodically cull the populations to keep them healthy. In this modern world, some form of wildlife management is unfortunately necessary.
For my own part, I would forbid almost all domestication of animals as pets.
In the long run I tend to agree with you, as domestication is a distortion of the environment with many negative consequences, but wouldn't such a measure would be impossible to enforce in our lifetimes and have very bad short-term unintended consequences? Do you favor a ban of all domestication of animals?
An additional reason for my not wanting to eat bear, is that they are at the pinnacle of the mammalian revolution. Not only are they one of the strongest mammals, butalso one of the more intelligent.
OK, thanks for sharing. I think we're getting to the core of why you oppose any bear hunting here, and it's an understandable motivation.
-
Judging from the posts on the Canadian firearms owners' forum, there are many who get a hunting license every year, and then when close enough to the to bear they throw rocks at it, instead of a bullet.
This is an attempt to teach bears to smarten up, be alert, and avoid Man.
I guess they agree with TD.
-
Unfortunately, I think increased future war and starvation is probably inevitable as the soils become increasingly depleted by monoculture agriculture (past soil depletions and exhaustions led to wars and empire collapses) and nations fight over increasingly scarce foods amidst a growing world population. The green revolution of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and bioengineering can only partially offset the soil depletion effects.
That's not the case. Using composted manure, seawater precipitate, natural calcium like bone meal or dolomite, and earthworm castings can do absolute miracles for pretty much any soil, in just a few months. Humans won't be starving to death, this I guarantee. Our future wars will be over religion, most likely.
-
Our future wars will be over religion, most likely.
Nah. Money, as usual.
-
That is not the generally accepted term for endangered and was not what I meant by it. I think sustainable forms of hunting and management should be allowed as long as the populations continue to grow and are not considered endangered or threatened or even "near threatened," by the scientific criteria generally used, rather than by your historical criterion. So that's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on I guess.
The trouble is that "sustainable" is a very relative term, favouring only humans. Let's say we have a population of 12 billion in 200 years' time. At that stage humans would be so numerous, that "sustainable" as a term would involve keeping alive far fewer animals than today. Far better to limit human population and allow animal numbers to increase to million+ figures. I mean, many current animal species are so limited in numbers that severe inbreeding is occurring(eg:- cheetahs)
I think hunters should be educated to engage in ethical, sustainable hunting that uses as much of the animal as possible (so wolves should only be killed to control imbalances or avoid public backlash against them that might lead to vigilante killing of them, for example, since not much of wolves is of much use other than trophies and adornment) and does not threaten the survival of the hunted species, and trophy hunting should be discouraged. Do you consider it OK to hunt wild deer, water buffalo, whales, seal, and other large fauna when "ethical" forms of hunting are employed?
Only if they exist in the millions like deer.
Banning all hunting and management of the larger fauna is the equivalent of trying to circumvent the food chain and in the modern world can result in distortions, such as decimation of prey species in a given area, starvation, disease, etc., due to imbalances in animal populations. Most environmental and governmental organizations understand this. We agree that predators and large fauna should be preserved, we just apparently disagree on how to go about this. A blind, arbitrary ban on all hunting of all species of bears until they reach pre-modern levels (which they cannot, since there will be die-off from starvation and disease before then) seems unrealistic to me. If hunting is banned, then taxpayers will have to pay rangers to periodically cull the populations to keep them healthy. In this modern world, some form of wildlife management is unfortunately necessary.
This is not a good stance. It's precisely human intervention and management which has decimated the predators at the top of the food-chain thus wiping out or heavily distorting the food-chain. Far better to let Nature take its course as it's wiser than humans. And wildlife management would be unnnecessary if humans were willing to compromise by withdrawing from land better suited for wildlife etc.
In the long run I tend to agree with you, as domestication is a distortion of the environment with many negative consequences, but wouldn't such a measure would be impossible to enforce in our lifetimes and have very bad short-term unintended consequences? Do you favor a ban of all domestication of animals?
All except guide dogs and food-animals.
[/quote]
-
That's not the case. Using composted manure, seawater precipitate, natural calcium like bone meal or dolomite, and earthworm castings can do absolute miracles for pretty much any soil, in just a few months. Humans won't be starving to death, this I guarantee. Our future wars will be over religion, most likely.
Boy, I hope you're right. Even if the soil is saved, though, the world population is still increasing and is expected to go to 9 to 12 billion or higher. Plus, organic farming techniques have never been shown to produce as much as "green revolution" techniques that destroy the soil, as far as I know.
Only if they exist in the millions like deer.
So I guess wild salmon are off your list too, given that their numbers have been declining rapidly? I've been eating less of them due to increasing price anyway and am beginning to think we're approaching the point where it's not sustainable to keep eating them at this rate. It's too bad too, because they are a very healthy food and I feel great when I eat salmon.
This is not a good stance. It's precisely human intervention and management which has decimated the predators at the top of the food-chain thus wiping out or heavily distorting the food-chain. Far better to let Nature take its course as it's wiser than humans. And wildlife management would be unnnecessary if humans were willing to compromise by withdrawing from land better suited for wildlife etc.
All except guide dogs and food-animals.
Yeah, I know, but "if" doesn't do us any good in the real world. We're stuck with the unpleasant reality that we've so screwed up the planet that management is the only way to keep the remaining animals alive. Management in part involves protecting the remaining wild animals. We can't rely on the masses to not exterminate them, as they have done going all the way back to H. erectus 1.6 million years ago.
-
Boy, I hope you're right. Even if the soil is saved, though, the world population is still increasing and is expected to go to 9 to 12 billion or higher. Plus, organic farming techniques have never been shown to produce as much as "green revolution" techniques that destroy the soil, as far as I know.
You can create new soil out of literally nothing, with the ingredients I mentioned, plus terra preta, rock dust, clay, and other substrates. Those ingredients are the basic soil body. The calcium is the main mineral plants need, and the seawater precipitate includes all the trace minerals. The worms in the worm castings keep the soil aerated and help avoid "hardpan". You can also use blood meal, chicken feather meal, etc. to increase nitrogen. It is quite possible, using all these, to produce huge yields, year after year, so long as you keep re-adding all that you took away, in terms of organic matter and minerals. There are other tricks too, like using nitrogen-fixing plants like soy and fava in conjunction with fruit trees to increase their yield, crop rotation, foliar feeding, etc. It's quite do-able. The main idea is that you have to replace everything you took. I have a feeling that Moore's Law will, in just 20 years or maybe less, make all this sort of thing no longer even a slight worry, due to increasing technology. However, even without that...
-
You can create new soil out of literally nothing, with the ingredients I mentioned, plus terra preta, rock dust, clay, and other substrates. Those ingredients are the basic soil body. The calcium is the main mineral plants need, and the seawater precipitate includes all the trace minerals.
If it were as easy to the world's population on organic farming as you describe, I suspect they would already be doing it, as it's sufficiently a pain to adopt green revolution agriculture that some 3rd world nations have still mostly not transitioned. Most of the proponents of organic farming I've read admit that it can't feed the current world population, but I would be curious to see any alternative perspectives you can cite. Maybe they were fooled by Monsanto/ADM/Bayer propaganda or something.
I'll try to be optimistic and imagine that in some future day people smarten up and voluntarily reduce the population back to levels that organic farming could support and gradually make the transition back while rejuvenating the soils like you described. Then in the farther future reduce the population further so that people can go back to hunting, gathering and wild horticulture.
-
If it were as easy to the world's population on organic farming as you describe, I suspect they would already be doing it, as it's sufficiently a pain to adopt green revolution agriculture that some 3rd world nations have still mostly not transitioned. Most of the proponents of organic farming I've read admit that it can't feed the current world population, but I would be curious to see any alternative perspectives you can cite. Maybe they were fooled by Monsanto/ADM/Bayer propaganda or something.
I'll try to be optimistic and imagine that in some future day people smarten up and voluntarily reduce the population back to levels that organic farming could support and gradually make the transition back while rejuvenating the soils like you described. Then in the farther future reduce the population further so that people can go back to hunting, gathering and wild horticulture.
It's not hard to switch to greener methods, you just have to stop spending money on GMO seeds, pesticides, etc., and spend it on other things. However, relatively few people even know how important natural calcium is to plants, and almost nobody knows about seawater precipitate. Worm castings are also relatively unknown, but, just between those three things, you've pretty much got all you need for amazing soil, in just a few months. It really is a questions of knowledge versus ignorance. I can show you pictures of plants grown with seawater precipitate, if you want. You can take a look at
www.c-gro.com/ (http://www.c-gro.com/)
or
sea-crop.com/ (http://sea-crop.com/)
to get an idea. Those are without extra calcium or worm castings.
The only reason that N-P-K fertilizers can produce so much is because they have lots of nitrogen. Natural sources of nitrogen like composted manure, blood meal, etc. are easily substituted in place of N-P-K fertilizer, and are much better for the soil.
The organic growers you know almost certainly have no idea what seawater precipitate is, and may not even have heard of worm castings. It's doubtful they even know that calcium is the most important mineral for plants. They probably know about natural nitrogen sources like blood meal, but that's probably all. You can't build healthy plants without the right minerals, and that's why organic agriculture often fails. People don't know what they're doing, enough to really get the job done.
-
So I guess wild salmon are off your list too, given that their numbers have been declining rapidly? I've been eating less of them due to increasing price anyway and am beginning to think we're approaching the point where it's not sustainable to keep eating them at this rate. It's too bad too, because they are a very healthy food and I feel great when I eat salmon.
I haven't seen a wild salmon at any fishmonger's in my area for several years now, it's all farmed salmon. I admit that if I had it available, I would make an exception for selfish reasons(it's just too good a food).
Yeah, I know, but "if" doesn't do us any good in the real world. We're stuck with the unpleasant reality that we've so screwed up the planet that management is the only way to keep the remaining animals alive. Management in part involves protecting the remaining wild animals. We can't rely on the masses to not exterminate them, as they have done going all the way back to H. erectus 1.6 million years ago.
Again, I disagree. They're now talking about granting wildlife corridors between national parks as keeping wildlife in a heavily managed smallish area is impractical. In short, the only solution is to leave large tracts of wild land to animals, forbid humans to venture inside, for the most part, and place vast penalties on people harming wildlife. I mean, if , say, farmers were given the death penalty for shooting dead a member of an endangered species, that would work as a disincentive.
-
...The organic growers you know almost certainly have no idea what seawater precipitate is, and may not even have heard of worm castings. It's doubtful they even know that calcium is the most important mineral for plants. They probably know about natural nitrogen sources like blood meal, but that's probably all. You can't build healthy plants without the right minerals, and that's why organic agriculture often fails. People don't know what they're doing, enough to really get the job done.
Thanks, you've given me reason to hope on this. It occurred to me that the vast majority of "experts" on diet are WAY wrong, so most "experts" on farming could be wrong too when they claim that the green revolution is responsible for the huge increases in production and the only method that will maintain those levels of production.
I get a kick out of how the news media talks about "organic" farming like it's this wild new concept, when it's very similar to how my grandfather and most other ordinary farmers did it decades ago.
-
So I got my bear meat(ground) I have it thawing out on my counter top & it would probably be ready to eat sometime tonite. The meat juice is very dark & rich red. Not sure if it's meat juice or blood. I'm getting hungry just staring at it. I asked my (now ex) GF's Mom if she had any extra bear fat. Told her I wanted it for my dog. She gave me some bones but said the butcher grounded all the bear meat.
(http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr163/danmillz/16d2ee1941d1__1257838506000.jpg)
-
Well I ate it. It was pretty bland with a little sweet note to it. I'm guessing keeping it in the freezer was what took away some of the gamey taste. I handed some to my dog & he looked at me dumbfounded. He didn't eat it. I was surprise cause he eats anything.
-
Dogs communicate in pictures in the mind I think, and have stupendous sense of smell. Maybe bear seemed too much like cousin Billy-Bob from the woods, this time. He hasn't eaten bear before, right?
-
Dogs don't prey on bears in the wild, for obvious reasons, so maybe bear meat doesn't smell like prey meat to dogs?
-
Dogs have been hunting companions/partners of Man for millennia, and always got their share. (Lean meat! Lean meat is dogfood!)
I hear from pet owners that if the pet sees the owner eating something it will want to try it, so did the dog see the bear meat being eaten?
-
He gets the scraps after I'm done with it. I'm thinking since it was a new meat he was suspicious. I haven't given him the bones yet though. Also the meat came out the freezer & was pretty bland(no game taste, tasted like very lean bison) Maybe it smelled to plain for him lol.
Dogs don't prey on bears in the wild, for obvious reasons, so maybe bear meat doesn't smell like prey meat to dogs? Possible, makes common sense.
-
My Grassfed-beef sources caved in. Now they're only really sell very lean cuts & even the ground beef is 85-90%lean. I normally get chucks or shanks cause they have the most visible fat. seems like everytime I go they ran out, but has tons of chuck stew meat.
I don't think it's cutting it though. I'm getting ridiculous cravings for junk food I never ate even before RVAF (oreos,peanut butter/chocolate candy bars,french fries, cooked hamburgers). For the longest I thought my cravings were cause of a mineral deficiency. So I used raw cocoa beans to ward off the chocolate cravings. It helped with the chocolate cravings but now I'm craving fatty junk foods like twix & reeses pieces.
I think I'm lacking fat(like another poster suggested). So here is my strategy. I'm thinking of getting pricier cuts conventional beef (which comes out to the same price as the grass fed beef I normally buy $6-8/lb) with more visible fat, trying raw pork,egg yolks & maybe butter(I always loved the taste of butter & never had a problem with dairy except for to much raw milk)
My only reason for going with this strategy is because I might be moving soon(finished inspection on a house I bid,waiting for bank to accept my re-bid) So I really don't want to order anything online until I'm settled in as far as housing goes. (I'm pushing the bank to close ASAP)
I've recently added lamb & beef liver. The lamb was delicious. Had a very soft buttery taste to it. I will be including some weekly. I was never a liver fan. I threw it in a blender with 6 eggs & 1 strawberry. It tasted great. My goal is to just be able to tolerate the taste of liver with nothing else. Might try it tomorrow.