Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: whatever on November 23, 2009, 09:14:39 pm
-
Hi, I was wondering.
Suppose you live 15000 years ago in a tribe of 20 people and once a month you gather the men and go hunting for a cow or bison or something like that. I Think you get 300+ kilo of food from that kill enough to feed your tribe for a month.
Some of you eat a very large percentage of their food as fat, does the animal has so much fat?
-
Wild game in palaeo times would have been quite lean in most cases, due to exercise/famine etc.
-
You would suppliment with cod liver oil, of course.
-
haha. There is no way that one bison is going to last 20 people a month.. One bison would last 20 people mabye a week I would say. but its still not A LOT of fat.
-
Those of us eating purely fat & protein do eat a much higher percentage of calories from fat to protein than would be sustainable by a tribe's subsistence hunting.
I know I do it because it gives more energy per gram consumed, is more sustaining, is less expensive, and the fat has a beneficial effect on the Candida I'm working to rid myself of. ;)
-
I too question how the plains indians avoided rabbit starvation. But then again, they knew to kill the oldest fattest buffalo, and they ate the brains, eyes, marrow, tongue, spinal fluids, kidney and heart fat, hide fat, back fat, and any other source of fatty substance inside the animal. I also bet that they also dug holes in the ground and burried slabs of fat/meat for the winter months, as animals do with their excesses.
-
Oh, and I had to look down at my lunch to be reminded of one of my favorites, the testicles, also full of significant fatty acids, and then there's the pancreas which sometimes to seemingly have fat deposits throughout?
-
I think this is a good point to raise, whatever, and is something I've thought about myself having recently adopted a vlc meat/fat diet.
I think van's response provides an insight into where the answer lies. I think when they consume many of the animal parts not considered by modern man they are using their learned and instinctive knowledge to provide the levels of fats and essential vitamins/minerals needed. As alluded to by djr also, it's worth remembering that we're all overcoming a lifetime - generations even - of incorrect eating. This leads our bodies to require more fat to combat inefficiencies and overcome all manner of dysfunction and disease - neither of which would've been encountered by traditional hunter/gatherers.
-
I too question how the plains indians avoided rabbit starvation. But then again, they knew to kill the oldest fattest buffalo, and they ate the brains, eyes, marrow, tongue, spinal fluids, kidney and heart fat, hide fat, back fat, and any other source of fatty substance inside the animal. I also bet that they also dug holes in the ground and burried slabs of fat/meat for the winter months, as animals do with their excesses.
The plains Indians were the pemmican-makers, so I doubt that they would have buried meat.
For the 15 men of the Lewis and Clark expedition, one buffalo was only enough for one day, as they knew that lean meat is dogfood. They had many from which to choose a fat one, so they killed one every day.
IMHO their time, when the American great plains were black with buffalo would have been most like paleolithic times, as what makes wild game scarce and lean is agriculture.
-
I should have included that I meant to say that before the plains indians came across/traded for iron pots allowing them to make pemican, they might have buried their meat and fat to preserve it. They were doing their thing a long time before white man's cooking influence. Same goes for the Inuit.
-
...they knew that lean meat is dogfood. They had many from which to choose a fat one, so they killed one every day.
IMHO their time, when the American great plains were black with buffalo would have been most like paleolithic times, as what makes wild game scarce and lean is agriculture.
Are you saying they chose their buffalo carefully, William, or that they actually disposed of the lean muscle meats?! Surely lean meat is jerky/pemmican rather than dogfood!? For people so wise it would seem foolish to dispose of ANY potential foods.
I should have included that I meant to say that before the plains indians came across/traded for iron pots allowing them to make pemican, they might have buried their meat and fat to preserve it. They were doing their thing a long time before white man's cooking influence. Same goes for the Inuit.
Surely, the plains indians were cooking foods prior to white man's influence weren't they van? They have a wonderful understanding of nature's medicine which must surely have been a compensatory measure for their tendancy to cook their foods? I wonder if, like the inuit, they were predominantly raw at some point in their history? Do we have any links to information on this?
-
Are you saying they chose their buffalo carefully, William, or that they actually disposed of the lean muscle meats?! Surely lean meat is jerky/pemmican rather than dogfood!? For people so wise it would seem foolish to dispose of ANY potential foods.
I doubt the plains indians would have thrown away lean meat as they'd have supplemented with carbs, such as berries, when in season. In colder climes, such as the arctic, where carbohydrate sources were more scarce I could see this occurring though. You need adequate fat or carbohydrates to your protein intake to maintain health.
Surely, the plains indians were cooking foods prior to white man's influence weren't they van? They have a wonderful understanding of nature's medicine which must surely have been a compensatory measure for their tendancy to cook their foods? I wonder if, like the inuit, they were predominantly raw at some point in their history? Do we have any links to information on this?
I don't understand the comment on iron pots either.
Man has used the waterproof stomach membrane as a cooking vessel basically since we began cooking. As long as there's liquid in it it won't burn and I'd imagine rendering fat would work in this capacity.
-
I haven't heard about animal skins used for cooking. Not really sure how that would work? I am sure they cooked before white man exchanged their cooking utensil for furs ect... But it's the iron pot that seems to have changed some of their ability to boil or in this case render fat. I have mention how the iron pot allow the inuit to boil their food too. But I am curious about the animal skin technique?
-
I doubt the plains indians would have thrown away lean meat as they'd have supplemented with carbs, such as berries, when in season. In colder climes, such as the arctic, where carbohydrate sources were more scarce I could see this occurring though. You need adequate fat or carbohydrates to your protein intake to maintain health.
I don't understand the comment on iron pots either.
Man has used the waterproof stomach membrane as a cooking vessel basically since we began cooking. As long as there's liquid in it it won't burn and I'd imagine rendering fat would work in this capacity.
Sure, I can certainly imagine they'd not be foolish enough to consume lean meat in the absence of fat or carbs. They were, of course, acutely aware of rabbit starvation. But, wouldn't they use it to make jerky for later consumption (perhaps as pemmican) when fat or carbs were again available? I guess this is all conjecture as we don't actually know and individual circumstance most likely called for individual decisions.
To be honest, I hadn't actually considered their inability to render fat due to a lack of physical apparatus. I think the stomach membrane would provide potential means for achieving this but, like van, would be interested in further details of how this would've worked. Do you know of how they achieved this djr?
-
But, wouldn't they use it to make jerky for later consumption (perhaps as pemmican) when fat or carbs were again available?
They could have made their famous high meat with it too? Or fed it to sled dogs?
Do some dogs not need as much fat? I have two cats. One cat always intentional turns away from fat, the other loves fat and gobbles it up. Maybe there are eating differences in one individual to the next in malamutes/huskies.
-
Are you saying they chose their buffalo carefully, William, or that they actually disposed of the lean muscle meats?! Surely lean meat is jerky/pemmican rather than dogfood!? For people so wise it would seem foolish to dispose of ANY potential foods.
Surely, the plains indians were cooking foods prior to white man's influence weren't they van? They have a wonderful understanding of nature's medicine which must surely have been a compensatory measure for their tendancy to cook their foods? I wonder if, like the inuit, they were predominantly raw at some point in their history? Do we have any links to information on this?
No links, but they ate raw. How much I don't know.
Wise people don't eat dogfood, and they saw themselves as part of the cycle of life that includes scavengers who also need to eat so they left a share for wolves, fox, etc. That share is what I call dogfood.
They made pemmican for winter food and for travelling.
-
I haven't heard about animal skins used for cooking. Not really sure how that would work? I am sure they cooked before white man exchanged their cooking utensil for furs ect... But it's the iron pot that seems to have changed some of their ability to boil or in this case render fat. I have mention how the iron pot allow the inuit to boil their food too. But I am curious about the animal skin technique?
To be honest, I hadn't actually considered their inability to render fat due to a lack of physical apparatus. I think the stomach membrane would provide potential means for achieving this but, like van, would be interested in further details of how this would've worked. Do you know of how they achieved this djr?
Believe it or not I believe the first reference I've seen to this was in Jean M. Auel's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_M._Auel) Earth's Children novel series. While this is definitely a fictional series it's got a lot of historical accuracy of the time period.
Since these references to cooking like this I have read it elsewhere but I can't for the life of me remember where.
I'm looking for references through Google and will post when I find them. :)
-
...To be honest, I hadn't actually considered their inability to render fat due to a lack of physical apparatus. I think the stomach membrane would provide potential means for achieving this but, like van, would be interested in further details of how this would've worked. Do you know of how they achieved this djr?
There's no trick to it--you just do it. People assume the bag wouldn't hold up, but it does. We used to boil water in paper bags in the Boy Scouts for kicks. Paper burns at more than twice the temperature that water boils at, and hide no doubt burns at an even higher temperature. Here's a video in which a dollar bill was used:
Boil Water In One Dollar Bill!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/527233/boil_water_in_one_dollar_bill/
No iron pot required. :)
Hide bags were also used to store pemmican and tallow. French trappers called them "parfleche" bags because they could also serve as shields (par - fleche means "parry" - "arrow"). They could also serve as maps. Since there were so few personal goods, people made multiple uses of nearly everything.
The French had roughly the right idea in North America. As I understand it, they generally followed the model of the First Nations' peoples on how to live, instead of forcing the natives to live like Europeans, though they were less benign in other of their colonies. Come to think of it, the French have a long history of interest in Paleo-type diets and lifestyle and they keep popping up in numerous Paleo subjects.
-
Thank you Phil. :)
As Phil alluded to the contents of the "Parfleche" (is the term also used when referring to a cooking vessel Phil?), provided they are liquid based, will keep the vessel from combustion. I'm not sure of the why though.
If I was to make one from a stomach I'd slice the stomach from opening to opening along the shortest distance. I'd then put it in the middle of a loop of some sort (vines or saplings would work well). Let the edges overhang some and sew the edge together with string made of sinew. I'm sure it'd work great for most cooking provided the heat source was concentrated enough on the "bag" and not the support.
-
Thank you Phil. :)
As Phil alluded to the contents of the "Parfleche" (is the term also used when referring to a cooking vessel Phil?)
I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I don't know what the French or First Nations people called the cooking bags. My guess is they were larger than parfleche bags.
If I was to make one from a stomach I'd slice the stomach from opening to opening along the shortest distance. I'd then put it in the middle of a loop of some sort (vines or saplings would work well). Let the edges overhang some and sew the edge together with string made of sinew. I'm sure it'd work great for most cooking provided the heat source was concentrated enough on the "bag" and not the support.
That's right, a suspended cooking bag or gourd was used for boiling or rendering before pots. Also water-filled holes in the ground, with hot rocks added to them. For rendering, I believe you would have to add water to the bag at first to avoid burning the hide. There would need to be enough water so that by the time the water boiled off, the suet would be in liquid state.
-
Believe it or not I believe the first reference I've seen to this was in Jean M. Auel's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_M._Auel) Earth's Children novel series. While this is definitely a fictional series it's got a lot of historical accuracy of the time period.
Since these references to cooking like this I have read it elsewhere but I can't for the life of me remember where.
I'm looking for references through Google and will post when I find them. :)
I look forward to seeing further references djr, thanks. I'll do a little research myself too if I get a chance.
Boil Water In One Dollar Bill! ....No iron pot required. :)
Hide bags were also used to store pemmican and tallow. French trappers called them "parfleche" bags because they could also serve as shields (par - fleche means "parry" - "arrow"). They could also serve as maps. Since there were so few personal goods, people made multiple uses of nearly everything.
The French had roughly the right idea in North America. As I understand it, they generally followed the model of the First Nations' peoples on how to live, instead of forcing the natives to live like Europeans, though they were less benign in other of their colonies. Come to think of it, the French have a long history of interest in Paleo-type diets and lifestyle and they keep popping up in numerous Paleo subjects.
Thanks Phil for that wonderful information! I was certainly aware of the use of hide bags for storage vessels but hadn't considered the prospect of their use in cooking. Fascinating! I've spent alot of time in France as I was in a relationship with a French girl a few years ago as well as having some other French friends in Paris and the Alps regions. I have nothing but admiration for French people & culture and am not surprised of their long association with paleo lifestyles. It's such a shame that so much of this wisdom has been forgotten.