Author Topic: tallow v. butter  (Read 25984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
tallow v. butter
« on: January 04, 2011, 06:04:47 am »
I prefer to eat raw marrow or raw grass fed pork fat, but due to storage-price-availability issues, they are not dependable for me. Instead, I have much better access to raw grass fed butter and grass fed tallow (self made because I cannot currently digest raw suet nor do I think it tastes good, like pork fat does). Which do you think would be better, eat the tallow and try to transition to raw, or eat butter, or some combination?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2011, 06:34:23 am »
If you are not raw zero-carb, you can just buy lean raw wild game(usually cheaper than raw grassfed meats) and eat some raw carbs as well, no need for extra raw fats.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 03:25:43 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2011, 09:19:45 am »
Yeah, I'm not zero carb.

I am low carb though and my current grass fed meat isn't really fatty enough: I would have to eat like 3 pounds a day (plus some carbs) to get enough calories (~2000).

Wild game is a good idea though. I just have no idea how to source any. Do any of you guys know of someone who has bought wild game in NYC before?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2011, 09:24:14 am »
There are ways to get hold of dirt-cheap grassfed meats meant for pets. These are dirt-cheap, and, according to reports, fine for human consumption.Check the info for newbies section for the relevant thread re buying cheap meats.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2011, 02:28:50 pm »
yeah I've sourced grass fed pet food (beef from slankers, and chicken from a farmer) however, these are actually even leaner < 10% fat. I was trying to get a hold of some whole small game animals. That way I could eat everything, which probably ends up having the correct fat to protein ratios. Otherwise, it seems like you have to add an outside source of fat like marrow, back fat, butter, or tallow.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2011, 03:29:38 pm »
yeah I've sourced grass fed pet food (beef from slankers, and chicken from a farmer) however, these are actually even leaner < 10% fat. I was trying to get a hold of some whole small game animals. That way I could eat everything, which probably ends up having the correct fat to protein ratios. Otherwise, it seems like you have to add an outside source of fat like marrow, back fat, butter, or tallow.
Well, Lex pays a very small amount for his 2/3 pet food plus some raw grassfed(human-grade)suet.  In your position, I would either use raw marrow( along with Intermittent Fasting so as to cut slightly down on food-intake). If you are dairy-tolerant, then raw butter would be far better than tallow.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2011, 06:55:52 pm »
Well, Lex pays a very small amount for his 2/3 pet food plus some raw grassfed(human-grade)suet.  In your position, I would either use raw marrow( along with Intermittent Fasting so as to cut slightly down on food-intake). If you are dairy-tolerant, then raw butter would be far better than tallow.
Are you saying that raw butter is better than tallow or just butter is better than tallow if dairy-tolerant?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 05:32:08 pm by TylerDurden »
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2011, 07:18:18 pm »
Are you saying that raw butter is better than tallow or just butter is better than tallow if dairy-tolerant?
The latter. Those few who thrive on raw dairy without side-effects will do fine on raw butter, but not  tallow with its added heat-created toxins.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2011, 11:48:47 pm »
yeah, I would eat marrow, but there are just feasibility and storage issues.

For example, last time I ordered about 60 lbs of marrow (with bones) from slankers. Since I have no place to store it, I spent like 8 hours extracting the marrow into gallon glass jars. I ended up with a bit over 6 lbs. Given the time involved, it doesn't make sense if you already spend most of your days working.

The best alternative I have found for a "soft" fat (high in mono-sat fat / easier to digest) is exterior pork fat. I'm willing to bet fowl fat is "soft" as well, but I have never been able to source it raw.

Also, regarding suet: while I am positive that raw is better than rendered  (if you can digest it), how do you explain Lex Rooker's success and people on cooked paleo diet's success? While I know some end up with gut cancer, this is very different from heart disease and can probably be mitigated if cooked fats are consumed with antioxidants (salad/kimchi/spices).

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2011, 12:42:53 am »

Also, regarding suet: while I am positive that raw is better than rendered  (if you can digest it), how do you explain Lex Rooker's success and people on cooked paleo diet's success? While I know some end up with gut cancer, this is very different from heart disease and can probably be mitigated if cooked fats are consumed with antioxidants (salad/kimchi/spices).
  Actually, I've been on a number of cooked-palaeodiet forums in the past(and am a member of one right now), and , while they do report some limited successes, these are never as good as what RVAFers report and only apply to a few specific conditions. Heat-created toxins  lead to  a huge range of conditions, not just heart-disease - while a very few of these, such as diabetes, are also not a problem on a cooked-palaeodiet, most others very much are, such as arthritis and other old-age-related conditions . As for Lex, he seems to be eating at least some raw fats along with the rendered fats. As for combining cooked fats with antioxidants, that would be useless:- for one thing, many cooked-palaeodieters are cooked, zero-carbers so frown on the consumption of any plant foods; but also, there is increasing scientific evidence against the notion that antioxidants are healthy. Besides, one would have to eat a huge amount of antioxidants to counter the effects of the cooked foods, thus introducing other negative factors(salad hardly being a truly nutritious food, by itself etc.)
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2011, 02:50:35 am »
Overall I agree with you that plant foods are hardly nutritious compared to grass fed animal foods and that antioxidants may be treated like toxins within the body (in that we just urinate them out).

However, if the main concern of cooked fats is oxidation (there may be others that I am unaware of?) then spices like tumeric (with thier high ORAC values) may be able to counter act some of this oxidation. (also can you point me to the studies of cooked paleo dieters suffering from heart disease)

Further, just like most studies of meat are never on raw meat, most studies of metabolism are never on ketosis. The old age conditions you describe from cooked fats may not apply as significantly when the body is fully utilizing fats. (for example, it is not that crazy to think that if the body is in ketosis then it has promoted systems to better handle oxidized fats)

Don't get me wrong, I totally believe that fully raw grass fed animal foods are the way to go. Instead, I am suggesting that when raw grass fed fats are unavailable (or indigestible) perhaps it is better to eat cooked grass fed fats than it is to reduce fat consumption.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 03:01:34 am by a87.pal »

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2011, 03:36:41 am »
yeah I've sourced grass fed pet food (beef from slankers, and chicken from a farmer) however, these are actually even leaner < 10% fat

Not exactly a true statement, at least for Slankers pet food.  Slankers will tell you that it is 10% fat because that is what they add to the mix when they make it.  The organ meats and other bits and pieces also have fat in them so the total fat content is around 16% to 17% which is what I actually measure with my FA73.

The difference between butter and animal fat (rendered or not) is that the animal fat has a far different fatty acid profile than butter.  Slankers has an analysis on their website that shows the fat in their meats is almost 50% from the Omega3 family of fatty acids.  Butter doesn’t even come close to this.  For this reason I stick with animal fat as my primary fat source and only eat butter when animal fat is unavailable like when eating out.

Many become hysterical over cooking and rendering.  Though I believe that raw is probably best, I do render fat for storage, making pemmican, and often use it as part of my food mix.  The American Plain’s Indians rendered fat for centuries and did quite nicely.  For me, it’s all about what will make this way of eating convenient enough that I’ll stick with it.  It doesn’t matter that raw suet is better than rendered fat if I either can’t or won’t use it.  For me the fatty acid profile of rendered fat is better than butter, it is just as convenient to use as butter, I can render and store enough fat in one weekend to last a couple of years, and it doesn’t require refrigeration or any special handling to store for long periods.  Just keep it in a cool dry place out of direct light.  I store mine in 2 gallon containers which I keep inside large chest coolers (the kind you take camping) in the garage.  The cooler insulates the rendered fat from the heat of the garage on summer days so even though the garage may get to 100 deg, the inside of the cooler seldom rises above 70.  It is also dark.  I keep one container in a kitchen cupboard and use fat from that until it is gone and then fetch a new container from the stash in the garage when needed.

Understand that I’m not eating just rendered fat.  My normal mix is all raw (slankers pet food and high fat ground beef) and contains about 18% fat by weight which is around 68% calories from fat.  I add additional rendered fat to this to bring the total fat content up to about 25% by weight which is about 77% of calories from fat.  It is fast, easy, and convenient, and best of all, I’ll do it, which is far better than aiming for some ideal of perfection which doesn’t exist and which I won’t stick with.

Of course you are free to wring your hands and worry over the real or perceived damage caused by rendering the fat, but I’m way to busy doing other things that I enjoy and am passionate about.  Eating is all about giving me the health and energy to do the things I love to do, not to spend every waking moment of my life focused exclusively on diet.  If things are going well, my body is totally transparent – I don’t even notice it as I’m totally absorbed in the miracles of daily living all around me.  Remember when you were a child.  You never gave your diet, your health, or your body a second thought, and that is as it should be.

Lex



Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2011, 04:53:38 am »
I called up http://www.pastureland.coop/contact

and he sad their grass fed butter is anywhere between 1.5:1 to 3:1 (w3-w6 ratio)

compare this to grass fed beef:

http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/id73.htm

Total        99.99
  *Sat      51.45
  *Mono      44.66
  *Poly      3.88
    -CLA      1.46
    -w3      1.22
    -w6      1.09


In general, I think grass fed butter and animal fat will have favorable w3-w6 ratios (but butter might be overboard once you are healthy). In general, the risk with grass-fed butter is lactose, cow hormones, and some other milk proteins like casein, not w3-w6 ratio. Even if butter is mainly fat, and is cultured, there will still be trace amounts that can cause problems. Although, I personally don't get any noticeable symptoms (other than finding its taste "weird").

Also, butter has more mono-sat and less waxy esters than suet, which makes it easier to digest raw for people still transitioning on the diet.

Offline turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2011, 05:06:17 am »
too much butter makes my stomach rumble(even if it is raw grassfed), have not tried suet yet. Just wondering if digesting suet will be harder than digesting raw butter.

If this is true then how will increase my fat intake.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2011, 06:38:15 am »
Did Pastureland share the actual analysis of their products with you or just give you verbal statements.  I noticed that you had actual published numbers for Slankers fat but didn't provid this detail for Pastureland butter.  One of the reasons that I'm loyal to Slankers is that they are able to back up every claim they make with actual published data.  I've found many vendors willing to tell me what I want to hear in an effort to get/keep my business.  Unfortunately, few have any documentation to support their claims and a couple have been down right dishonest.  I'm sure that Pastureland is probably a fine concern, but you might want to put their actual analysis next to Slankers analysis to remove any doubt.  This would also go a long way in confirming that raw butter is a viable alternative to animal fat from the perspective of fatty acid profile. 

Lex

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2011, 06:56:10 am »
yeah I had the same concern, so I contacted green pastures http://www.greenpasture.org/retail/?t=contact, which sells the butter oil and fermented cod liver oil and he also verbally confirmed the ratio saying 2.5:1-3:1 (w3:w6) for the grass fed butter oil. He also said one of the best ways to see if they were partially grain fed was to look at CLA levels in the milk during that time. He wouldn't email me the full fatty acid profile though. So there is no way to verify.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2011, 06:58:03 am »
Overall I agree with you that plant foods are hardly nutritious compared to grass fed animal foods and that antioxidants may be treated like toxins within the body (in that we just urinate them out).

However, if the main concern of cooked fats is oxidation (there may be others that I am unaware of?) then spices like tumeric (with thier high ORAC values) may be able to counter act some of this oxidation. (also can you point me to the studies of cooked paleo dieters suffering from heart disease)

Further, just like most studies of meat are never on raw meat, most studies of metabolism are never on ketosis. The old age conditions you describe from cooked fats may not apply as significantly when the body is fully utilizing fats. (for example, it is not that crazy to think that if the body is in ketosis then it has promoted systems to better handle oxidized fats)

Don't get me wrong, I totally believe that fully raw grass fed animal foods are the way to go. Instead, I am suggesting that when raw grass fed fats are unavailable (or indigestible) perhaps it is better to eat cooked grass fed fats than it is to reduce fat consumption.
So far, I have never once come across a study by the pro-cooked crowd to suggest that antioxidants can somehow magically counter the effect of cooked, oxidised fats. Sure some antioxidants, such as vitamin E, have been used to prevent gradual slow oxidation over long-term storage of some products, but the harsh sudden oxidation of fats caused by cooking can't be prevented, even if you pour turmeric by the ton on the meats to be cooked.

There are actually very few studies done on cooked-palaeos, whether in terms of showing benefits or ill-health as a result of such a diet. What are in plentiful evidence are the many, many thousands of studies on the ill-effects of heat-created toxins in cooked foods(such as advanced glycation end products, heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc.). Such toxins have been scientifically proven  to lead to conditions like heart-disease, arthritis etc. etc.:-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking

The argument re ketosis somehow being a magical superhuman process that can deal with oxidised cooked fats, of course, makes no sense. Not only are there no studies done to show such an effect for ketosis(and there are more studies done on ketosis than raw foods, to my knowledge), but also cooked zero-carbers and cooked, VLCers have had cases of nasty side-effects suggesting the opposite of your claim. "The Bear" cooked zero)carb guru is a classic case with his throat-cancer.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2011, 07:10:20 am »
Lex is being a little disingenuous re his rather glib  mention of hand-wringing over cooking:- what he really means is that the bit of rendered fat works for him specifically, given his life-goals, not necessarily for anybody else. So, for example, Lex has no interest in heavy daily exercise and unlike many other RVAFers, he finds cooked meats to be less toxic to his system than raw carbs, etc. so this not necessarily  100 percent perfect combination of diet is absolutely fine for him, as long as his own personal health-expectations are met. (I note he still eats a lot of raw meat/fat, though, despite the above remarks re cooking).

However, plenty of others, like me for example, have few or no issues at all with raw plant foods but quickly get health-problems if they eat any cooked animal fats, rendered or otherwise. So, for such people, it is a hell of a lot healthier, to eat raw lean wild game and some raw carbs, say, than to eat lots of rendered tallow or other cooked animal fat. My own experimentation with raw, zero-carb and even a cooked zero-carb mini trial at one point) , however, showed that my health swiftly deteriorated and that there was no magic to the ketosis effect. Everyone is different, I guess.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2011, 10:30:07 am »
Lex is being a little disingenuous re his rather glib  mention of hand-wringing over cooking:- what he really means is that the bit of rendered fat works for him specifically, given his life-goals, not necessarily for anybody else. So, for example, Lex has no interest in heavy daily exercise and unlike many other RVAFers, he finds cooked meats to be less toxic to his system than raw carbs, etc.

Actually, what I meant was what I said, no more, no less.  All the rest is your opinion.

so this not necessarily  100 percent perfect combination of diet is absolutely fine for him, as long as his own personal health-expectations are met. (I note he still eats a lot of raw meat/fat, though, despite the above remarks re cooking).

There is no 100% perfect combination of diet.  However, there are trends that are clearly identifiable in the larger population base.  Things like the 30 fold increase in diabetes and other degenerative diseases since the implementation of the food pyramid in the 1950s promoting grains and carbs as the foundation of our diet.  That said, there is no identifiable trend that I’ve been able to find related to cooked vs raw food.  People eating cooked food live just as long and often as healthy as those that profess that raw is the holy grail.  In fact, I could probably make the case, based on the lifespan of the popular Natural Hygenist’s of the past 100 years, many of whom preached a raw food lifestyle, that they didn’t even live the average lifespan for their generation.  My research seems to point to WHAT you eat is far more important than HOW it is prepared.  My choice to eat raw is one of ideology, (no other animal cooks its food), not one based on any evidence that cooking is seriously harmful.  ZC has been an adventure to see if it would work.  Before starting ZC I ate a lightly cooked paleo diet that included carbs and did very well.  I also have no evidence that had I continued with the lightly cooked protocol, my health wouldn’t have continued to improve to my current level.  Of course we’ll never know as I went raw ZC and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

However, plenty of others, like me for example, have few or no issues at all with raw plant foods but quickly get health-problems if they eat any cooked animal fats, rendered or otherwise. So, for such people, it is a hell of a lot healthier, to eat raw lean wild game and some raw carbs, say, than to eat lots of rendered tallow or other cooked animal fat.

Nowhere have I never stated that all carbs are bad.  Only that what I’m currently doing is working well for me and I will continue until something causes me to change.

My own experimentation with raw, zero-carb and even a cooked zero-carb mini trial at one point) , however, showed that my health swiftly deteriorated and that there was no magic to the ketosis effect. Everyone is different, I guess.

From my experience, almost everyone, including me, finds an apparent swift deterioration of health when they make a massive change in lifestyle.  Full adaptation to ZC took me many months.  I can tell you that today, if I eat a meal with any significant carbs, I suffer terribly.  Lots of gas and bloating.  If I continued to eat a significant number of carbs, over time my body would again adapt to them.  Stephen Phinney showed that the studies on the deterioration of physical performance of athletes converting to a ZC or VLC lifestyle was due to the fact that the studies were stopped long before the subjects adapted to the new dietary protocol.  Phinney’s research proved that adaptation took far longer than believed, but if allowed to continue, performance returned to previous levels.  In this we are all the same.  I suspect that your problems with ZC/VLC are more due to the “mini trial” nature of your experiments rather than any real difference in your body’s ability to adapt.

I totally agree with you that there is no magic in ZC.  It’s just another dietary protocol with its own set of benefits and trade-offs.  There is no “perfect” diet, but health trends in the general population clearly show that some dietary choices are better than others.  And our lives are not static.  A baby’s needs are different than a teenager’s, which is different than a 30 year old, and different again than someone in the latter years of their lives, so at various times in our lives each of us may find that one set of trade-offs meets our immediate needs better than another.  This is why I’ll change what I’m doing in a heartbeat when there is concrete evidence that it is no longer meeting my needs.

Lex
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:29:13 pm by lex_rooker »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2011, 09:27:55 pm »
Actually, I hadn't done any short "mini-trials" as regards VLC, as I did VLC(less than 2? percent carbs, sort of 1 piece of fruit a week or similiar) for very long periods much earlier in my rawpalaeodiet, only eating any sizeable raw fruit in 1 summer month for a year or two - (I did it partly because  I had erroneously believed in Stefansson's fat-theories and partly because my appetite was always much less when I consumed hardly any carbs, and I had been solely interested in food as fuel at the time - no actual experiment or trial as with RZC, as such). Come to think of it, I seem to recall that my 1st experiment with RZC was around the time when I was long-term VLC. I will admit that my RZC experiments were rather short(though not by Stefansson's estimates, I think), but I would have expected my VLC habits of the time to have made me better adapted to RZC, to some extent.

As for the cooked vs raw debate, there is plenty of scientific data on the negative effects of heat-created toxins, including in vitro experiments, where the specific heat-created toxins were shown to affect human cells negatively, irrespective of which food they came from. I realise, though, that a large proportion of our views on diet are necessarily based on our own experiences, for natural, obvious reasons.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2011, 09:35:44 pm »
1 fruit a week is far from ZC, it makes a big difference in my experience.
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2011, 03:20:52 am »
I'll admit that I don't know as much about this stuff as others on the boards, but shouldn't the oxidized fats in tallow be different from the "heat created toxins" created when cooking proteins and fats together?

Also, I think there have been studies showing spices can reduce "heat created toxins" (though I'm not sure if these are the same toxins you are referring to):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854897/

Offline turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2011, 03:25:33 am »
I know i m pulling stuff out of thin air.

Just like we need some bacteria to keep our immune system tuned-up, what if we also need some toxins to keep it fit.


Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2011, 03:41:44 am »
I know i m pulling stuff out of thin air.

Just like we need some bacteria to keep our immune system tuned-up, what if we also need some toxins to keep it fit.



heh heh, yeah i'm back hanging out at bars for that reason. yeah... :)

---

to me the fatty acid profile of truly raw pastured butter is in a healthful enough range for my needs. It is the type of thing that depends heavily on how it is produced and the conditions of the animals and not all stuff is the same or is healthful just because it is raw. Its also the only fat I can get fresh. While I consume alot of frozen fats and some meats, I can't rant against these entirely but I do think there is something very healthful about fresh unfrozen fats. To me this can be a factor teetering fresh raw butter in the direction towards 'optimal'(for me). The only comparison I have is the meat on muscle cuts which I far prefer over frozen concentrated fat sources, and the fact that I have had frozen raw butter that basically gave me all kinds of dehydration and other issues.

While I don't think its wise to ignore animal fat sources like marrow or back fat or possibly suet in favor of all raw butter, I feel that sticking with 1 'paleo' fat source will have its drawbacks as well, particulary based on whatever else you are eating and for more reasons that just nutrition or diversity. Butter does have nutrients that suet will not, but even if one can argue against this for issues with the food itself there are other things to consider, even basic stuff. If you are eating essentially all red meats, sure it makes sense to just add suet or whatever already rendered tallow, but things like butter combine well with seafood, fruits etc...tallow/suet just doesn't function that way for me, so I don't really stir too much in the short term about which one I am most adapted to.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2011, 03:55:59 am »
I'll admit that I don't know as much about this stuff as others on the boards, but shouldn't the oxidized fats in tallow be different from the "heat created toxins" created when cooking proteins and fats together?

Also, I think there have been studies showing spices can reduce "heat created toxins" (though I'm not sure if these are the same toxins you are referring to):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854897/
No, they are not. I was referring to the main ones, namely advanced glycation end products/alpha-lipoxidation end products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines. So far, there have been a few gimmicks which have been described as lowering such toxins(nothing to do with antioxidants but things like marinating meats completely in certain sauces during cooking), but the reduction is always only slight and affects only 1 or 2 subtypes(example was that study I showed a while back which indicated a reduction in only 2 of the 17 types of heterocyclic amines produced by cooking if the meat was marinated in a beer- or wine-sauce before cooking).
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 04:05:40 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk