Raw meat and poo

[TylerDurden]

I don't know anything, but what I've read in this thread, so this is all musing.  :

I would guess that smaller amounts of organ meats would be consumed with larger amounts of muscle-meats. Wouldn't one kill be used for a while if in a smaller group? and having as much of as much of a kill as possible used to feed a larger one? Either way, you'd be using as much of the animal as you can (I would think.. unless there was some kind of surplus and easy hunting), and thusly consuming more muscle-meat then organ-meat.

So a sort of balance would be reached--organ-meats being in less quantity, but higher nutritional value; muscle-meats being in higher quantity, but lower nutritional value. Both provide energy, and I would think that you would get plenty of nutrients between the muscle-meats and the less-frequent organs.

But today, I would say it comes down to taste and what your body is asking for. Everyone has an individual balance that's optimum for them. It might mean all organ-meats; it might mean high-carbs via non-animal foods. Different ratios fit different people. Experimenting and listening to your body is really the only way to find out what fits your genetics and lifestyle.

All musing though, I don't know much about ANY of this

Here's a comment from BYV re organ-meats, showing that they actually discarded muscle-meats in times of plenty:-

"Organ meats favored in preference to muscle meats in hunter-gatherer diets. Observations of modern hunter-gatherers have shown that muscle meats (the leanest part of the animal) are least preferred, sometimes even being thrown away in times of plenty, in preference to the fattier portions. Eaten first are the organs such as brains, eyeballs, tongue, kidneys, bone marrow (high in monounsaturated fat), and storage fat areas such as mesenteric (gut) fat. (Even this gut fat is much less saturated in composition, however, than the kind of marbled fat found in the muscle meat of modern feedlot animals.) There is no reason to believe earlier hunter-gatherers would have been any different in these preferences, since other species of animals who eat other animals for food also follow the same general order of consumption."  taken from:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1f.shtml

My point is that the raw organ-meats would have been shared automatically after each kill, thus ensuring that everyone regularly ate organ-meats(though some societies would have forbade their slaves from getting organs, resulting in poorer health for the latter, no doubt). Since organ-meats contain anywhere from 10 to 100 times as many nutrients as muscle-meats in many cases, they are particularly relevant to people (such as most of  us) who've incurred nutritional deficiencies from decades  on  virtually organ-meat-free diets.

Another consideration is that most RAFers simply do not get the opportunity to eat the whole animal(most have never eaten the fat behind the eyeballs, for example), so they need to make up for this by eating more fatty organs such as tongue etc.

[avalon]

Craig wrote:

I could eat an entire raw blueberry pie for lunch. Would that be paleo?

I don't know Craig, does this include the crust? How did you make the crust? How did you process the Blueberries? Is this a really 'RAW' pie? And what about the floor show? In the middle of the night. In an empty house. What diabolical plan had seized Craig's crazed imagination. What indeed!

goodsam wrote:

A cooked, processed food diet based on grains, beans and potatoes is a recipe for disease.

  I don't feel so well heh heh

 TylerDurden wrote:

Another consideration is that most RAFers simply do not get the opportunity to eat the whole animal(most have never eaten the fat behind the eyeballs, for example), so they need to make up for this by eating more fatty organs such as tongue etc.

Anyone here have their tongue split? Can you imagine not knowing if this hot chick or dude you were with had had their tongue split and you go to like, kiss them and like, their tongue is split...    sorry, off topic I guess  Never mind.

[Raw Kyle]

A truly healthy diet cannot protect us from everything. And besides, how do we know that his diet or lack of something in the diet had anything to do with the cancer...we just don't.

Right now, there is just no evidence in favor of either diet (organless or with organs). I just can't picture individuals eating a whole organ to themselves once, twice or many times every week. A small piece of some preferred organ-meats from time to time, yes! That makes more sense and as such, that tells me that organ meats are not that essential...I see them as more of a treat.

To each their own...that's just my opinion. 

I think there's basic logical evidence of eating the muscle and organs in the proportion they are found on the animal. My logical evidence is that in a survival situation living off of hunting and gathering there's no way in hell people are going to shun one or the other. So I think the most reasonable approach is to eat organs in some simple estimation of how much there are of them in comparison to the muscle you're eating. I guess this would probably work out to eating maybe a pound or two a week or various organs, maybe less.

[Satya]

I think there's basic logical evidence of eating the muscle and organs in the proportion they are found on the animal. My logical evidence is that in a survival situation living off of hunting and gathering there's no way in hell people are going to shun one or the other. So I think the most reasonable approach is to eat organs in some simple estimation of how much there are of them in comparison to the muscle you're eating. I guess this would probably work out to eating maybe a pound or two a week or various organs, maybe less.

I completely agree with your logic, so long as possible hunting companions like dogs are considered.  And like you say, Kyle, in a survival situation, taste and preference won't matter.  I believe Tyler is correct as well when he says we may need more of an organ when deficiencies have built up in a person over years of SAD living.  And the proportion of organ to muscle may depend on the animal, right?  Also, insects and mollusks will have different systems than more complex organisms.  I think this discussion has focused on large land mammals only.  Smaller prey, fish, fowl, reptiles and the like all have organs that might be eaten.  Smaller animal organs tend to be milder in flavor too.  At least I find it so.

[TylerDurden]

Ah!  A Tolkien fan, judging from the signature above.