Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nicola on August 20, 2008, 04:59:18 am
-
I have noticed that most people will not go for grass fed and eating raw is absolut nuts. I go by what I feel - and raw feels better. What I do not know is the grass vs. grain...perhaps it is a big market one way or the other?
What Dana has to say (ask cowgirl...)
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=334&page=214
Nicola
-
Grass-fed is the way to go.
That nyteez is crazy! To say there is no difference between grain-fed and grass-fed and that the grass-fed movement is a hoax and that no hormones or antibiotics show up in commercial meat...
I guess that's why there have been university studies done on the nutritional benefits of grass-fed beef, and that we are continuously seeing ground beef recalls in the US.
-
I guess that's why there have been university studies done on the nutritional benefits of grass-fed beef, and that we are continuously seeing ground beef recalls in the US.
I shudder to think about how many of those sick animals make it by inspection.
-
I am not on that other forum and don't care to be. It's hard to get an understanding of a thread unless you are following it for a time.
Grassfed beef is far superior for the animal and the one who eats it. CLA is a big reason why
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/splendor.html
" Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is another nutrient found in the fat of ruminant animals that feed on green grass. CLA has been found to be highly protective against cancer when added to the diets of laboratory animals.3 In addition, CLA promotes the deposition of muscle rather than fat. In a double-blind study with human volunteers, those given CLA had a significant 15 to 20 percent decline in body fat compared to those given a placebo.4 In another study, men enrolled in a bodybuilding program were given either CLA or a placebo. After 28 days, the placebo group could lift nine more pounds; but the CLA group could bench-press 30 pounds more than they had at the beginning of the program.5
"It's no accident that the New Zealand All Blacks, the national rugby team composed of players who grew up on pasture-fed New Zealand butter, is so hard to beat, even though most of the teams they play come from countries with a much larger population base.
"The discovery of CLA in the fat of grass-fed animals—in butterfat, tallow and suet—and the emerging revelations as to its benefits, has posed an embarrassing dilemma for apologists of the factory farming system. Scientists are looking for feed supplements that induce confinement cows to produce CLA and for ways to produce CLA in the laboratory so it can be sold in supplement form. The solution, of course, is to phase out confinement feeding and put cows back on green pasture where they belong. As a nation that has always depended on dairy products, this is the only way to regain the robust good health we enjoyed just a generation or two ago."
-
I just don't know - Charles, the Bear, AV and many say grain fed is healthy. Perhaps the grass fed people are just trying to make money or has any body got proof or are we just all nuts.
Think, we have money to spend but what about all those with children? Don't you feel bad, spending all that extra money and time (we may be food obsessed?). I just feel like that, when I go out in the world or go on different forums - Charles never talks about detox...
I just like to think, that I am "normal" and doing my best.
Can you proof, that you are doing right with spending time and money for grass fed just for YOU?
Nicola
-
I should add that AV , according to people on the closed Primal Diet yahoo group, does not recommend grainfed meats after all. He just views the issue of cooking as being more important so views eating raw intensively-farmed grainfed meats as better tahn eating cooked-meats(provided no grainfed organ meats are eaten due to toxins collecting there).
As regards the whole issue of grassfed/grainfed:- It all depends on the state of health of a person. Someone who is already in a reasonable state of health will take much longer to decline on a diet of just cooked grainfed meats, and will benefit to a certain extent from not eating refined carbs and sugars. However, someone in a bad or appalling state of ill-health will be far more likely not to regain his health if he eats a grainfed meat-containing diet(or take much longer to regain health) than someone on a raw, grassfed meat-containing diet.
-
Can you proof, that you are doing right with spending time and money for grass fed just for YOU?
Nicola,
Feedlot animals are probably raised better in Europe than in the US. Here, they get doused with pesticides, hormones and antibitiotics. They live in concrete stalls and never see the light of day. I support local ranchers who let the cows graze on ample land, eating the diet they were intended to eat - cows are not grain eaters in nature! I pay very reasonable prices, especially for organs. It is my money and if I can choose to buy the best food, then that is what I will do. No one is going to somehow prove to me it is a waste if it is something I value.
I have 2 sons who eat a ton of food as they approach adulthood. Our food bill is actually cheaper with paleo - and by paleo I mean a meat-based, omnivorous diet - than it was buying more processed foods. Grain costs are skyrocketing and you may find that grassfed beef becomes more economical than grain fed in the very near future. Any grain feeding will skew the fatty acid profile of the ruminant animal dramatically. Rather than talk to people set in their ways, why not talk to farmers about it? That's what I do. They know a whole lot more about animal health than people who buy cuts wrapped in plastic.
I can raise animals on my land. I should. Sheep could eat the grass so I don't have to mow it with machinery. I live in some of the best cattle/sheep country in the US. There is a goat farm 3 houses down from me. All of these animals live on grass. I see them grazing all around me, where ever I go in my little town. To feed them grain is stupid and costly. And it gives the animal serious indigestion.
-
What about horses? What is their natural diet? I see owners who ride them feeding oats and grain at times. They eat lots of grass too, if they are on a good plot of land. There are horse breeders 3 houses down the other direction. :)
-
grass fed beef has yellow fat.
grass fed beef tastes yummy.
grain fed beef has whitish fat and tastes yucky.
At least that is the beef I get here in Manila.
-
Slanker's Grass-Fed Meat
Nicola, here's my answer:
If one subscribes to the idea that all foods are good for you and that chronic disease (bodies failing) is a natural thing, then you should continue doing what you are doing and what everyone else is doing. But, if you are interested in taking care of your body so that it won't fail, then maybe you should pay a little attention to modern peer-reviewed science. On our web site are links to real scientific reports by Artemis Simopoulos. She is world renown today like Einstein was in his time except her field of focus is nutrition. You can thank her for all the talk about Omega-3 fatty acids that started back in the 1980s. Yes, she's the one. The only reason Omega-3 fatty acids are something folks talk about these days is that Artemis discovered that certain fats are essential for all animal health and the American food system was deficient in one very important essential fat. The reason that occurs is because man invented grain farming and grain is deficient in the Omega 3 fatty acid. So, the more grain-based our food system has become, the more body failures there are in the general population. Every chronic disease you can name is a body failure and every one of them can be traced to eating grain. Even obesity and early maturity in children comes from eating grain.
Now lots of folks doubt that, but millions of animals every year are fattened on grain and are made to mature earlier by being fed grain. But nobody takes all the millions of experiments on animals of all types and relates it to people. (Like for instance, why are veterinarians so busy treating pets with the same diseases that people get?) Not being able to relate these facts together is pretty dumb, huh?
Grass-fed meats taste they way they do because they are loaded with Omega-3 fatty acids like all animal bodies are supposed to be. Also, they are loaded with vitamin E, vitamin A, Beta Carotene, CLA, and the list of nutrients go on and on. All these very important nutrients have flavors. Grain fed meats are low in these very important nutrients and therefore the meats are flavorless. You can say, correctly, that all grain-fed meats are anemic.
Now you can sneer at grass-fed meats all you want, but when I look at Joe Six-pack, I usually see a pretty sick, overweight fellow. But people take on their growing loads of chronic diseases as signs of maturity. In other words they are proud of their sicknesses! And in time if you eat grain, grain-based foods, and grain-fed livestock you will be just like the Joe Six-packs. But I have a different goal. I am focused on quality of life and my body is important since it's what carries me around.
Our web site is loaded with information. Go to the Omega-3 Essay section. http://slankersgrassfedmeats.com/focusing_on_nutrition.htm Go to Science Links. http://slankersgrassfedmeats.com/science_underscores_grassfed_meats.htm Check out the reports by Artemis Simopoulos. And keep in mind that America's grain-based food system is feeding 300,000,000 people three meals a day. So it's not a machine that can be turned around in even a few decades. If the USDA told the truth about grain, there would be panic in the streets because there wouldn't be any food to eat in the stores. So the time for the whole truth is decades away yet. But individuals can make a difference. And until the masses are involved the grass-fed industry will be tiny and it won't have the advantages of mass production. So the real food it produces will cost more. Maybe to you, money is more important. So be it. But before you shoot your mouth off much more about grass-fed meats and expose your tremendous ignorance, why don't you look over the fence (read the scientific literature) and then maybe you'll understand why some of us are focused on changing our taste buds to accept our new foods.
There is too much more to tell you, but your reading assignments are already probably beyond what you're willing to do. Plus over the years I've found that trying to educate folks with their heads firmly planted in the sand is futile to say it mildly.
Ted Slanker
http://slankersgrassfedmeats.com
The Real Diet of Man is Very Simple: http://www.slankersgrassfedmeats.com/the_real_diet_of_man.htm
Nicola Harrison wrote:
Hi Ted,
I and many others (Lex Rocker...) know all about what you sell, but just as many will say that we/you have no proof; they say that grass-fed meat tastes bad and is just a way of making lots of money...
Please take the trouble to answer, as many people eat just meat and nobody knows for shore what to believe.
Nicola
-
Wow, he did come off as a little bit rude towards the end there, eh? I think he assumed a little bit too much about you as well.
-
I read in Aajonus Vonderplanitz' book that he recommends grass fed.
I read that Aajonus had bad experiences with grain fed organs and marrow.
I read that Aajonus says if he is on travel and can't find grass fed, he will buy supermarket meat, but only eat the muscle and fat as he feels those parts are safe enough while temporarily on travel.
-
I and many others (Lex Rocker...)
<snip>
Thanks Nicola. I needed a good laugh. Craig called Lex "Sex" yesterday, and now you've changed his last name. I think Lex Rooker must become "Sex Rocker" at night when he becomes a secret rock star. Bwaaahaaahaa!
-
Wow, he did come off as a little bit rude towards the end there, eh? I think he assumed a little bit too much about you as well.
I agree he was pretty rude with Nicola about reading and having her head in the sand. Their website is a bit that way too. I use Burgundy Pasture Beef as they are more centrally located in TX where the tall eastern grasses and the short native western grasses combine. I have looked into Slankers, but I don't care for the ever so slightly condescending attitude they convey about ordering, availability, etc. Their prices on choice steaks are lower than Burgundy, but Burgundy is cheaper on cheaper cuts and organs.
-
Wow, he did come off as a little bit rude towards the end there, eh? I think he assumed a little bit too much about you as well.
To be fair, Nicola did rather strongly suggest to Ted Slanker that grassfed meat producers might be only promoting grassfed meats for the money without there being any health-benefits, which is an aspersion on the guy's integrity, and integrity/reputation is something that any owner of a long-term business is deeply concerned about. Naturally, he would be pretty pissed off about it. *Oh, yeah, "pissed off" in UK slang means " angry" not "drunk" as in US slang.
-
Pissed off means angry in the US too.
Oh, and you are right that Nicola suggested a profit only motive. I must have missed that when thinking about the Sex Rocker connection. :D
-
Sorry, I'm getting mixed up. "Pissed" in UK slang means "drunk" "pissed off " in UK slang being "angry". It's just that I remembered that there was some confusion between US and UK slang over that word.
-
Sorry, I'm getting mixed up. "Pissed" in UK slang means "drunk" "pissed off " in UK slang being "angry". It's just that I remembered that there was some confusion between US and UK slang over that word.
Hmm... in the US, both "pissed" and "pissed off" mean angry.
However, I've heard people say things like "we got piss drunk last night"
slang is such an odd thing.
-
Hmm... in the US, both "pissed" and "pissed off" mean angry.
However, I've heard people say things like "we got piss drunk last night"
slang is such an odd thing.
I suspect that a few Americans are simply borrowing the term from the UK.
-
I agree he was pretty rude with Nicola about reading and having her head in the sand. Their website is a bit that way too. I use Burgundy Pasture Beef as they are more centrally located in TX where the tall eastern grasses and the short native western grasses combine. I have looked into Slankers, but I don't care for the ever so slightly condescending attitude they convey about ordering, availability, etc. Their prices on choice steaks are lower than Burgundy, but Burgundy is cheaper on cheaper cuts and organs.
I changed the first part of his answer - he did not answer for me, the answer was aimed towards the "meat and water" group of Charles as Dana had a lot to say about grass fed vs. grain fed (I asked him to answer on the sight so that I could stay out of this war).
I just feel bad about how much time and money I spend when other "do well (don't worry)" and eat a "normal" diet. The other thought is that many diet of hunger and I can choose to eat this way.
Nicola
Sorry about the "Rocker" part!
Nicola
-
I just feel bad about how much time and money I spend when other "do well (don't worry)" and eat a "normal" diet. The other thought is that many diet of hunger and I can choose to eat this way.
Well, it's just one of those things. You know, some people smoke and drink alot and live to a ripe, old age. Others die young doing everything perfect. So there are no guarantees either way. But you will feel better about supporting a good farmer than a corporation that doesn't care at all, right?
Many do go hungry. But how you eat will not affect them, unless you set aside money saved and donate it and make sure that money really goes to help the people. But still, you can think about good stewardship in many ways. Isn't it better for all people to have the animals raised on land and let their manure fertilize the grass? Industrial farms pollute waterways and cause health problems in many people. So when you look at it that way, naturally raised animals are better for the environment than factory farms. And we all share the environment.
The Rocker comment rocked! I needed laughs for my health right at the time I read that, so please do not apologize. I am sure even Lex will not mind if I needed it at the time. He is a good sport!
-
Just an update, as I am still looking for "the light" of grassfed vs. grainfed as well as other things...
http://tinyurl.com/6gm7nc
and of course Ted's answer did not solve the problem or shine much light...
Nicola
-
Ted provided quite a number of scientific studies proving his point. All grainfed-meat-consumers can do is claim that they're OK - of course, it all depends on one's idea of health. I suspect that grainfed-meat-consumers simply have lowered standards as regards their definition of tru health.
-
Just an update, as I am still looking for "the light" of grassfed vs. grainfed as well as other things...
http://tinyurl.com/6gm7nc
and of course Ted's answer did not solve the problem or shine much light...
Nicola
That video wasn't enough to convince you?
Here's another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfZohaycWho
University Study: http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html
-
Just an update from Ted:
Most professional medical people know nothing about nutrition. So say the MDs I've talked with over the years. That's because they're taught nothing about nutrition except what the USDA puts out in its Food Pyramid.
There are more meat studies than you can shake a stick at that show how animal bodies adapt the fat profiles of the foods they eat. Eat grain and you gain that fat profile. That's an absolute indisputable fact. An improper fat profile whether gained directly from eating grain or from eating grain-fed livestock leads the way to body failure. I don't know who Dr. Eades is, but he definitely hasn't read any published meat studies. ALL meat scientists report the nutrient differences in their studies that compare grain-fed with grass-fed meats and they've been doing so for many years. They just don't knock the grain-fed meats as nutritional disasters because the universities are supported by the grain-fed meat business. But they report the basic facts correctly.
People like Mac are casting about with two many meaningless inputs in their minds. It's all real simple and if a fellow reads reports and understands the differences between studies based on the limb of a tree versus a forest, then they can see the truth. But if a fellow has a million tree limb studies in mind, he can't see the forest.
Grain as a food is a concoction of man. Fields of grain are not only seasonal, but don't occur unless man intervenes in the natural way. So it is impossible for grain to be a food staple for any animal life. All animal life is supposed to follow the green leaf. That's the way it has been since the first one celled green plant came into being. And that's the way it will be for all the rest of time.
Unless a fellow can recognize that basic point, they are lost.
Everyone in the ranching business knows for a fact that unless he takes harvested grain to his livestock, no matter how he tries, other than hauling it to them, the livestock won't have any grain to eat in a natural setting. And that is true even if the rancher plants winter rye or winter wheat pastures. That's a fact. So, until the folks in the cities pull their heads out of the sand, they can't possible understand why the science behind grass-fed is so fundamental and sound. Even Lorain Cordain at one time didn't understand it just like all of us. But he has a much better handle on it today and so do I. It was learning about livestock nutrition that put me in this business and then later I learned that it applied to people as well. Then I changed the way I eat and my health improved dramatically. Prior to that I followed the USDA suggestions and was going down hill year after year.
Ted Slanker
Nicola
-
I just don't know - Charles, the Bear, AV and many say grain fed is healthy. Perhaps the grass fed people are just trying to make money or has any body got proof or are we just all nuts.
A thought has occurred to me: Maybe these more athletic-type people feel they are protected by their exercise and thus don't feel like this meat or that makes the difference exercise does. I would agree in younger ages of some people that this might be true. And also, I would be SO MUCH WORSE OFF if I did not sweat and kick and lift weights and swim. The fuel we put in our bodies is only one aspect of health! I remember when I was WAPF chapter leader trying to convince S. Fallon how important exercise is to health. Deaf ears my pleas fell on. There are so many factors to health. Why not do the best you can rather than worrying about whether it is cost effective?
Nicola, you said raw felt right with you. Well, how do you feel eating grain-fed v. grass-fed? Any difference? In my country, it is indegestion and diarrhea from the former. And plus, I care about the environment and how animals live. Just like many natives give blessings over the animal who gave up its spirit before they eat the innards. How can you feel good about eating corporate bullshit raised in factories?
-
These films convinced me a long time ago:
http://www.themeatrix.com/
(http://www.themeatrix.com/images_index/m1-big.gif)
-
Nicola, you said raw felt right with you. Well, how do you feel eating grain-fed v. grass-fed? Any difference? In my country, it is indegestion and diarrhea from the former. And plus, I care about the environment and how animals live. Just like many natives give blessings over the animal who gave up its spirit before they eat the innards. How can you feel good about eating corporate bullshit raised in factories?
What I feel about eating grain-fed v. grass-fed? Well our mind will dictate a lot...and just because I eat grass-fed does not mean that all is well; I am very active, plus alkaline ionized water...well raw meat and fat is all I want to deal with (no nuts and bolts please).
This is Ted's diet:
http://www.slankersgrassfedmeats.com/the_real_diet_of_man.htm
Take care!
Nicola
-
Those videos terrify me! m&ms! Potato chips! And that's likely the good stuff.
I wonder what they feed the lamb from Australia in my market. They do sell Maverick Grass fed Beef and Buffalo.
And now with the FDA approving irradiation for geens, my heart sinks more and more.
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/smarteating/entries/2008/08/22/irradiate.html
I need a Garden!
-
And now with the FDA approving irradiation for geens, my heart sinks more and more.
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/smarteating/entries/2008/08/22/irradiate.html
I need a Garden!
Right. What I want to know is: Are organic produce products being irradiated? I asked a friend, and she told me to call the USDA and ask. She says they actually have well-trained staff to answer questions. If I get around to it next week, I'll let y'all know what they say.
Yes, plant in pots if nothing else. Here in N TX, it is time to plant the autumn greens. I bet you could plant now too in your area. I might be eating salads from the garden through Nov or Dec if the weather cooperates. I total dig biodynamic gardening, and next weekend is the new moon, ideal for planting seeds with a short growth period - like greens. Yes, the moon affects the tides and it also affects the little seeds. It is a great system!
-
i believe Grass-fed to be far superior than conventional meat. not only in nutrition, but spiritually as well. now, of course in a perfect world i'd be hunting and killing an animal myself, but as for now obtaining meat/organs from a farm that lets animals roam around is much more karmically positive than kept in the filth of factory farms.
and theres a rudementary philosophy on this as well, grains arent cow-food(if the meat were talking about is beef), so a cow fed mostly grain(plus soy, newspaper, other cows) isnt going to be healthy and therefore not healthy to consume.
-
I just don't know - Charles, the Bear, AV and many say grain fed is healthy. Perhaps the grass fed people are just trying to make money or has any body got proof or are we just all nuts.
Nicola,
After many years of following gurus I've come to the conclusion that I must reach my own conclusions. One of the problems with gurus is that many are young and their bodies can tolerate much dietary abuse without showing any significant problems, and even when problems do occur the guru may ignore them and continue down a twisted path, convinced of the correctness of what he/she is doing.
TC Frye is a prime example. He was a strict fruitarian even as his health declined and he died at the relatively young age of 61 (if memory serves) proclaiming to the end that his was the proper road.
Charles, is amazing, but still very young. When I was his age I could drink 2 liters of soft drinks every day and still maintain a weight of about 175 without much exercise. I was also a strict vegetarian for about 15 years, much of which spanned is current age group and I would have told you at the time that vegan was the way to go and would point to my own performance as proof that it was proper. Again, a young body can tolerate less than optimal conditions and still perform well.
The Bear has had at least one bout of cancer that I am aware of, and may still be fighting it. Afterall, I haven't heard much from him lately. What caused the cancer? Who knows for sure. He has a long history of drug use and proclaims organ meats and grass fed meats are silly and that grain fed steaks are all you need. After all, he is living proof!
AV is certainly well meaning and is probably responsible for many finding their way to a paleo livestyle, but he is all over the map with his reccommendations. He changes the specific foods that he recommends as well as their proportions more often than I change my socks and I change my socks at least every day. If you want to know what he's currently recommending then check your watch because if it has been more than a few hours he's probably changed his mind on something.
I read what all of them have to say and then test their ideas against what my experience and a bit of critical thinking tells me makes sense. The question on this thread is Grain-fed vs Grass-fed meat. Every biochemist will tell you that there is a significant difference in the fatty acid profiles of the two. What they don't agree on is whether the difference is important to your health or not. My test is simple. Were grain-fed animals around during paleo times as our human species evolved? No? Then what was the normal food of the animals during that period of time? Grass! OK, left to their natural environment, what is the natural food for our animals today? Again grass! This makes me believe that the fatty acid profile of the animals eating grass is probably the best one to support our life and health. Feeding these animal grain is totally a modern contrivance to fatten the animals quickly.
Animals also start to lose their health in the feed lots when they are fed grain as their primary diet, and require constant attention to keep them healthy long enough to make it into our food chain - hence the need for antibiotics and other interventions that are not required for animals eating their natural diet of grass. You also have the problem of the mutation of E-Coli bacteria to an acid resistant form that is dangerous to humans as it is no longer killed in our acidic digestive tracts. This too, is created by feeding the animals an unnatural diet of grains and this risk doesn't exist in animal eating their natural diet of grass.
I'm giving you some of my reasoning for grass-fed vs grain-fed and how I've drawn my conclusions. I don't need AV, Charles, The Bear, or any other guru to tell me what to do. It is enough for me that chemists objectively agree there is a significant difference in the composition of the fat between grain-fed and grass-fed animals. The fact that the natural food for these animals has been grass for millions of years and is still grass today, clinches the argument for me. What could AV, Charles, The Bear, Dr Wigmore, Professor Hotima, TC Frye, or any other guru add that would be meaningful?
Think, we have money to spend but what about all those with children? Don't you feel bad, spending all that extra money and time (we may be food obsessed?). I just feel like that, when I go out in the world or go on different forums - Charles never talks about detox...
Can you proof, that you are doing right with spending time and money for grass fed just for YOU?
Just what expense are you talking about? Since I went grass fed meat my food bill has dropped to around $7 USD per day,and this includes the shipping charges. I don't know of anyone that is eating a Standard American Diet that can do it for even twice this amount per day - and I'd put my age and general health up against anyone. I believe I could easily feed a family of 4 for about $20 per day if I made careful choices and used alternate shipping methods. This is down right cheap.
Based on my own experience, I also bet a family eating grass fed meat as their primary food source would have much lower medical and dental costs over the years potentially saving thousands of dollars. And this doesn't even factor in wages lost due to illness etc.
Lex
-
Hello Lex,
Your words always sink down deep! I tend to pick up a lot of pieces and some how the pieces don't give the result that I expect...
I mentioned having diarrhoea for a number of days; raw meat and fat upset my stomach and did not get digested. It stopped when I used the salt water flush but that gave me water retention after 3 times (days) so no more of that for now. Then I also noticed that I had a lot of water in the colon (from the diarrhoea and then the salt; mineral unbalance) and that does not feel good. I thought the extra salt would help the body make hydrochloric acid for better digestion but raw meat and fat just does not seem the same as when a person eats cooked meat???
What are your thoughts:
I mentioned a TV Program about the Neanderthaler (Sully's Journal) - they say, that one needs special enzymes in the stomach to digest raw meat and that cooked meat is easier and more nutritious. The Neanderthaler would cook their meat for better digestion if they had a fire going.
Nicola
Lex, would raw meat vs. cooked meat affect what you have been following on your journal (your health)?
-
What are your thoughts:
I mentioned a TV Program about the Neanderthaler (Sully's Journal) - they say, that one needs special enzymes in the stomach to digest raw meat and that cooked meat is easier and more nutritious. The Neanderthaler would cook their meat for better digestion if they had a fire going.
Nicola,
The first thing that comes to mind is how on earth could anyone know what was done 50,000 years ago or more. There is so much controversy over what kind of food was eaten, how could anyone even pretend to know how it was prepared? I totally ignore such statements unless there is some kind of overwhelming evidence that supports the statement.
Take a look at the world around you. Can you name any other animal that cooks its food? Do you see any evidence in the natural world around you that humans would have evolved with digestive systems that were missing critical enzymes so that they required cooked food to be healthy when every other animal on this planet evolved to eat its food raw?
Take a look at what might have driven the idea of cooking food. Take a hand full of raw uncooked whole grain and tell me how you would eat this without cooking it. When we gave up the hunting life and traded it for farming grains, we had to find ways to prepare the new foods just to be able to eat them. I believe that there is significant evidence that one of the prices we paid for this was a decline in our overall health. However, even though the new foods were not optimum, they did allow us to support populations far in excess of what was sustainable through hunting and gathering alone - we just paid a price in health, stature, and probably longevity. Again, there is evidence for this conclusion based on comparisons of bones from the various periods of human evolution. Notice that I didn't mention that we started cooking our food because of missing digestive enzymes as there is no evidence of this whatsoever. However there is clear evidence that you can test for yourself right now, that the new foods that humans resorted too as their populations grew beyond what local hunting could support, are almost totally inedible without softening then through some sort of preparation like cooking.
Lex, would raw meat vs. cooked meat affect what you have been following on your journal (your health)?
We are rather adaptive animals and can do fairly well on a variety of different foods. I doubt that anything is perfect. Everything is better or worse by degrees. If you look at someone like me or even Charles, our diets before we changed were so poor that just changing to a cooked paleo diet was a tremendous improvement. Lets face it, cooked meat of any kind is better than a diet of soft drinks and Twinkies. If I hadn't gone any futher I might have the same view as Charles - cooked grain fed steak is all we need.
However, I tried to do some research as well as a bit of critical thinking to see if there might be an even better way. I found references to bones of ancient humans showing that they ate predominately red meat from land based animals with very little in the way of sea food or plant matter. I read Seffansson's account of his stay with the Inuits as well as his year long test of a meat only diet at Bellvue Hospital in NewYork. I read the Journals of the Lewis and Clarke expedition where they lived on pemmican and the meat of animals they hunted along the way - and where they ran out of their flour and biscuits within a few months and pretty much were forced to eat meat only - all the while maintaining good health. I read BYV, The Bear, Geoff's Yahoo Group, and other resources, which gave me the courage to try an all meat diet. Soon after converting to all meat I reasoned that no other animal cooks its food so why would humans? This lead me to try eating everything raw.
Each of these changes seemed to improve my health even more so I've stuck with them. I've also stuck with them long enough to experience some minor problems like leg cramps along the way. I added a bit of salt to my diet and the cramps went away and health has continued to improve as evidenced by my annual blood tests. This lead me to believe that salt is important.
So to answer your question about do I think there would be a difference between eating my food raw or cooked, today I can say the answer is yes, but I wouldn't have known it if I hadn't tried eating my food raw, and more importantly stuck with it long enough to see the benefits. The change from SAD to Paleo was a huge step with immediate and obvious benefits. All the other changes have been small incremental steps that required significant time for the additional benefits (as well as the need to add additional salt) to become apparent.
Lex
-
Nicola, this whole business re raw vs cooked is absurd. For one thing, low-carb-eating tribes generally went in for hefty amounts of raw animal food(the Inuit would eat lots of raw caribou and aged, raw fish etc.), the Masai would eat lots of raw dairy etc. So, if cooked-low-carb diets are supposedly so healthy, why would these tribes desperately need to include lots of raw animal food in their diet? People like Charles like to make all sorts of claims, but it would be most interesting to see how unhealthy he turns out to be when he reaches his 60s or 70s. And, of course, with people such as myself, deterioration as a result of a cooked-diet can occur at a much earlier date in life.
*Plus, pro-cooked-food proponents don't like admitting that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. I would be happy to challenge any of these pro-cooked-food advocates to eat a diet consisting only of a 100% diet of heavily-cooked, blackened, grainfed meats(muscle-meats no organ-meats), for a period of 10 years. I doubt that any would benefit from such an experience.*
-
So to answer your question about do I think there would be a difference between eating my food raw or cooked, today I can say the answer is yes, but I wouldn't have known it if I hadn't tried eating my food raw, and more importantly stuck with it long enough to see the benefits. The change from SAD to Paleo was a huge step with immediate and obvious benefits. All the other changes have been small incremental steps that required significant time for the additional benefits (as well as the need to add additional salt) to become apparent.
Lex
Lex, with my thoughts about your diet eating raw meat and fat vs. cooked I meant in regards to the affect on digestion/insulin; eating the same cooked would lead to a different picture (weight, blood sugar, lab numbers...)
Nicola
-
Nicola, this whole business re raw vs cooked is absurd. For one thing, low-carb-eating tribes generally went in for hefty amounts of raw animal food(the Inuit would eat lots of raw caribou and aged, raw fish etc.), the Masai would eat lots of raw dairy etc. So, if cooked-low-carb diets are supposedly so healthy, why would these tribes desperately need to include lots of raw animal food in their diet? People like Charles like to make all sorts of claims, but it would be most interesting to see how unhealthy he turns out to be when he reaches his 60s or 70s. And, of course, with people such as myself, deterioration as a result of a cooked-diet can occur at a much earlier date in life.
*Plus, pro-cooked-food proponents don't like admitting that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. I would be happy to challenge any of these pro-cooked-food advocates to eat a diet consisting only of a 100% diet of heavily-cooked, blackened, grainfed meats(muscle-meats no organ-meats), for a period of 10 years. I doubt that any would benefit from such an experience.*
Charles has a grate body and we know what he eats; time will tell!!!
I was just so ill for a few days and then watched that film on the Neanderthals "raw food needs special enzymes and that cooked meat was better digested and nourishing" that made me quite helpless. I got all my energy up to ride to Leibstadt (my mother and fathers sweet home) and what does my father say: "did you watch that film about the Neanderthals"? He was enjoying his cooked meal (chicken) so I let him get on with it.
Nicola
-
Hunter-gatherer tribes routinely eat at least some raw animal food, so it's absurd for the producers to portray Neanderthalers as needing to eat cooked-foods. Besides, as Lex has pointed out, animals don't need to eat cooked-food, so there is no earthly reason as to why humans would need to develop a digestive-system designed for cooked- rather than raw food, due to natural selection.
-
Lex, with my thoughts about your diet eating raw meat and fat vs. cooked I meant in regards to the affect on digestion/insulin; eating the same cooked would lead to a different picture (weight, blood sugar, lab numbers...)
I have no clue as to how my lab values would be different if I ate all my food cooked rather than raw. And to be honest, I really don't care if cooking my food would improve lab values. I'm not eating my food raw because it gives great lab results. I'm eating my food raw because eating that way makes me feel better than when I eat it cooked.
My Journal is all about eating to improve my health and feel my best. I've chosen to OBSERVE and report on the changes in the things I can easily measure like BG, Ketones, BMI, body fat etc. only because I find it interesting and thought others might find it interesting also. If the values go up or down it makes no difference to me as long as I continue to feel great. If my health fails due to what I'm eating (as it did when I was a vegan), I assure you that I will try something different - I'm all about what works, not trying to create some arbitrary lab result.
Lex
-
*Plus, pro-cooked-food proponents don't like admitting that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. I would be happy to challenge any of these pro-cooked-food advocates to eat a diet consisting only of a 100% diet of heavily-cooked, blackened, grainfed meats(muscle-meats no organ-meats), for a period of 10 years. I doubt that any would benefit from such an experience.*
From what I ascertain, the cooked low carbers who don't supplement suggest that fat and muscle-meat not be cooked above medium temperature for loss of nutrients. So, to a point, they do admit that no one can live on shoe-leather and grease alone. What gets me is that they deny the other end of the spectrum - that raw is the healthiest of all. The human body is a wonderful store-house of nutrients but alas, there is only so much. So many people are here because raw veganism eventually wrecked their health. It shan't be long before it starts happening to the cooked "meat and fat only" camp.
Craig
-
I think we are getting there Craig.
The less and less the cooked paleo eaters cook their food, and later on they realize they don't need cooking at all.
-
I have no clue as to how my lab values would be different if I ate all my food cooked rather than raw. And to be honest, I really don't care if cooking my food would improve lab values. I'm not eating my food raw because it gives great lab results. I'm eating my food raw because eating that way makes me feel better than when I eat it cooked.
My Journal is all about eating to improve my health and feel my best. I've chosen to OBSERVE and report on the changes in the things I can easily measure like BG, Ketones, BMI, body fat etc. only because I find it interesting and thought others might find it interesting also. If the values go up or down it makes no difference to me as long as I continue to feel great. If my health fails due to what I'm eating (as it did when I was a vegan), I assure you that I will try something different - I'm all about what works, not trying to create some arbitrary lab result.
Lex
Lex,
I don't think that cooked food would improve your lab results. There is proof that (cooked) high fat, low carb diets do improve lipid profiles and diabetes but that doesn't mean that Atkins is the be-all end-all of diets. If you had a twin, with the exact same history, who were eating the same diet as you , except cooked, he'd probably have had similar lab results as you but not be faring as well as you are! I'm not a gambler but I'd be willing to bet he'd not be around any more.
Cooked, low carb diets improve lab results because those diets require that carbs, which of course includes Neolithic carbs, be reduced and fat intake increased.
I've seen raw vegans produce lab results indicating that everything improved. In my opinion it was that they were not getting enough calories and were essentially on a calorie-restricted diet. Those lab results don't mean "healthier" either.
This is why I'm glad for your experiment! You tell it like it is in detail. You don't just spew lab results and base everything on them alone.
Craig
-
I think we are getting there Craig.
The less and less the cooked paleo eaters cook their food, and later on they realize they don't need cooking at all.
Edwin,
I agree! There are so many examples of that here alone and people in the process itself.
Craig
-
I believe that raw meat is healthier BUT, in my case, for some strange reason, slightly cooked meat makes me feel better and less tired. Am I weird or what?!
-
From what I ascertain, the cooked low carbers who don't supplement suggest that fat and muscle-meat not be cooked above medium temperature for loss of nutrients. So, to a point, they do admit that no one can live on shoe-leather and grease alone. What gets me is that they deny the other end of the spectrum - that raw is the healthiest of all. The human body is a wonderful store-house of nutrients but alas, there is only so much. So many people are here because raw veganism eventually wrecked their health. It shan't be long before it starts happening to the cooked "meat and fat only" camp.
Craig
Nice points, only cooking meat until medium rare is where the cooked 'meat and fat being healthier theory' enters a grey area!
I can definitely see the possibility of cooked meat and fat people moving in a raw direction over time.
-
i didnt want to start a new topic so i'll post here.
how do you guys feel about grass fed but grain finished meat. i went to a whole foods the other day and the butcher told me all there meats are grass fed and grain finished for the last 100 days. is it worth trying these meats?
-
What you could do is eat that grain-finished meat and then supplement with some raw, fermented cod liver oil(the only good one I know of is the one sold by Blue Ice). In the meantime, keep on looking for alternatives.
I too have had dodgy sources of meats which I suspected were grain-finished,at various times, and my solution was to go for wild game , instead, as that was guaranteed to be of high quality.
-
Yon, I don't want to depress ya, but I found out the other day that grain finished meat has exactly the same fat profile as fully grain fed.
In other words, the grain finishing eliminates the benefits of grass feeding at least in terms of fats.
Sorry man, but at least maybe you could get organic grain fed and save money for something else.
The positive news for some people is that if calves are fed on grain, then grass fed for the rest of their life it doesn't matter, it will be the same as grass fed.
-
that's what i was looking for. thanks for that! not depressed at all, i'll just have to pay a little more for the organic grass fed meat next to it. but they only have one cut of it a day so i was trying to see if maybe grain finished meats had some healthy stuff left over from the cow's grass eating days. by the way, do you have a link to the article? i'd be interested
-
Sorry, can't find it...I should save this stuff when I'm browsing.
-
"Any grain feeding will skew the fatty acid profile of the ruminant animal dramatically. Rather than talk to people set in their ways, why not talk to farmers about it? That's what I do. They know a whole lot more about animal health than people who buy cuts wrapped in plastic."
You are so right ;;;;
-
Can anyone comment on the taste and texture of grain v's grass fed? Within my short experience with grassfed I am finding that the organic meat I get from the supermarket and one organic butcher both have a 'rubbery' texture and a slightly sour taste. But my preferred organic butcher who says his meat is grassfed definitely has more appetising meat. It has a nice dark burgandy colour, is not sour, and has a better texture (not 'rubbery' at all). Has anyone else noticed a difference? The only other thing I can suspect as making the difference is that the meat from the supermarket and the first butcher has been frozen. I am going to do an experiment this weekend and freeze some of the meat from my preferred butcher and do a taste test.