pufa's: 3 vs 6

[TylerDurden]

The point about epigenetics is that the fundamental DNA isn't actually inherently changed just the gene-expression, so there's no major mutational change.

[rafonly]

ah-hah!

are you now saying that, just as 40,000 years ago, humans are basically still eating aurochs today?
in that case, it does not really matter whether the raw beef we pop in the mouth comes from pastured or from feed loted cattle

come to think about it, perhaps that's why people in other forums have found no significant difference in o-3:o-6 profile in beef meat regardless of farming/raising procedures (using usda calculations) -- see earlier posts in this thread

food for thought?
dha any1?

1 more point:
what's the proper manner to mention dha or fish on this forum without being blamed for lobbying for the aquatic ape theory?
do you sponsor the aquatic ape theory each time you eat seafood?
just curious

[TylerDurden]

are you now saying that, just as 40,000 years ago, humans are basically still eating aurochs today?
in that case, it does not really matter whether the raw beef we pop in the mouth comes from pastured or from feed loted cattle

The stunning lack of logic in the above statement is just weird! First of all, the aurochs and modern cattle are little different, dna-wise, given that modern cattle are just downsized versions of the ancient aurochs, and what they both ate re diet hasn't exactly changed to any extent in the intervening period(re grasses), so that they are indistinguishable. And of course the issue of grassfed beef/grainfed beef is totally irrelevant to your comment re the aurochs/40,000 years ago , as the nutrient profile of grassfed meat is very much different from that of grainfed meat, whereas there would be virtually no difference between grassfed meat from an aurochs and  meat from modern cattle raised on a similiar diet of grasses/herbs.

[rafonly]

weird?
i was just extrapolating from what you said: that there have been no fundamental changes in dna but only in gene expression
however:
changes in traits, esp. if reflecting dietary or biosphere modifications have an epigenetic effect & may end up being heritable variations

people have different priorities
among those for whom carnivorism is a natural foodstyle, some of the choices are:
         raw vs cooked
         fresh vs prefrozen
         entire vs ground
         grass vs grain
who can tell what the overall impact of those choices is? how would those alternatives be sorted out & quantified on their physiological & behavioral impact over a period of time?

myself, i prefer all the choices i listed on the left: raw, fresh, entire, grass; however, since carnivorism is my natural, firm, nontradable choice, i may on occasion be led by the circumstances to let go of any of my preferred meat features > great! if that strategy keeps me free of the fruit pest it's most welcome

"the nutrient profile of grassfed meat is very much different from that of grainfed meat"

this is a crucial point

the moderators of this forum, meant to be focused on raw paleo, owe it to their readers to explain, precisely, the nutritional differences between pastured & grain fed beef
their comparative study may be based on:
~ their own personal experiences, whatever they may be
~ the experiences w/ both types of beef of as many raw carnivores as available
~ scientific studies in biochemistry, nutrition, epigenetics, evolutionary biology, etc.
~ food databases such as usda, nutritiondata.com, etc.
~ other

we sure want to see that comparative nutritional profile!
if you're advocating pastured beef, you owe it to your readers to substantiate your claim or else let grass fed beef wither as an urban legend

from my experience, 1 thing i can say is that, to me, pastured beef smells & tastes different from its feedloted counterpart -- a subjective impression, which at least to some degree must be the result of my buying pastured beef only in the form of really fresh primal cuts... hard to tell
another thing i can say is that i prefer to give my money to farmers who feed their cattle according to the animals' original (aurochian) digestive system -- this shows an anthropomorphic projection, since it's based on my own feelings about myself & not on any knowledge of the current animal's feelings or preferences

anyhow,
~ it's claimed by various paleo authors that in the last 10,000 years since the dawn of the farming-herding-urbanizing-civilizing revolution humans have not genetically adapted to cereals, legumes, nonhuman milk especially past weaning age (& for that reason modern humans are advised not to include these items in their diet)
~ there are both anecdotal individual reports & scientific research findings to partially support this paleo dietary claim -- albeit focused mostly on traits, not on genes & only in some human populations -- even though the said paleo claim remains at odds w/ current cultural standards

are there, likewise, any research findings that show that auroch/cattle have or have not, gene- or trait-wise, adapted to the same dietary items in perhaps the same timeframe?

further,
are there any long-term scientific or personal studies of the effects of grass vs grain beef on human physiology or behavior? or any historical comparison of the effects of carnivorism before & after the grain feeding technique & feedloting were adopted? does stefansson say anything about cattle raising practices in the contiguous us states?

+ another gem from the expert:
"there would be virtually no difference between grassfed meat from an aurochs and  meat from modern cattle raised on a similiar diet of grasses/herbs"

how do you know (if you do)?
how was the "similar diet" measured & ascertained (if it ever was) in paleo aurochs & modern cattle?

which leads to:
what's the difference between cattle standing in a feed lot & aurochs stranded between glaciations?
what was there for aurochs & horses to eat between glaciations?

it is as if the cro-magnon had taken the secret of their sophisticated, complex brain with themselves



[rafonly]

Re comment "why should homo physiology, the planet's biosphere, animal physiology & metabolism be exactly the same today as 30,000 years ago" .It is possible, I suppose, for animals to suddenly change their metabolism etc., but that generally takes a lot longer than 30,000 years. I'm just a bit sceptical re the pufas somehow changing in that time.

so earlier you were skeptical about the possibility of the pufa profile changing in 30,000 years or less

but recently you ended up claiming that it was "weird" logic to hypothetically presume that there is no significant difference between modern grass & modern grain fed beef re. their pufa profile

however:
a) you had already stated that the said pufa profile won't change in 30,000 years
b) you agreed that modern cattle is not genetically different from paleo auroch (ignoring epigenetics)

what gives?

hopefully your comparative (grass vs grain) nutritional profile will be available soon

[/color]

[TylerDurden]

so earlier you were skeptical about the possibility of the pufa profile changing in 30,000 years or less

but recently you ended up claiming that it was "weird" logic to hypothetically presume that there is no significant difference between modern grass & modern grain fed beef re. their pufa profile

however:
a) you had already stated that the said pufa profile won't change in 30,000 years
b) you agreed that modern cattle is not genetically different from paleo auroch (ignoring epigenetics)

what gives?

hopefully your comparative (grass vs grain) nutritional profile will be available soon

I'll easily be able to provide a lengthy list of pro-grassfed meat studies when I'm back from vacation in August - hardly a problem, given the many papers out there.

As regards the PUFA issue, it makes perfect sense to assume that the wild herbs eaten by wild aurochs 30,000 years ago were not much different from the wild herbs that modern cattle can eat if in relatively wild surroundings. You'd have to come up with a hell of a lot more proof showing major evolution in plants during that period to come up with something to qualify that statement.

As for epigenetics, the main reason it's such a science is that Mankind has a far higher level of epigenetic changes than other animals. indeed, 1 recent article(New Scientist?) pointed out that there are bigger differences between men and chimps than most people realise, that the 1.6% difference is made much bigger when one takes epigenetics into account. By contrast, epigenetic changes in animals)like the aurochs) are tiny by comparison. Besides, cattle have only been eating grains in a big way only very, very recently in human history, with the rise of intensive farming, so , obviously, have had no chance whatsoever to adapt to a grain-diet. That is, unless you're making outrageous claims re instantaneous adaptation within a mere handful of generations of cows.

[TylerDurden]

so earlier you were skeptical about the possibility of the pufa profile changing in 30,000 years or less

but recently you ended up claiming that it was "weird" logic to hypothetically presume that there is no significant difference between modern grass & modern grain fed beef re. their pufa profile

however:
a) you had already stated that the said pufa profile won't change in 30,000 years
b) you agreed that modern cattle is not genetically different from paleo auroch (ignoring epigenetics)

what gives?

hopefully your comparative (grass vs grain) nutritional profile will be available soon

I'll easily be able to provide the grassfed meat studies when I'm back from holiday in august, there are plenty around.

Re pufas:- It makes perfect sense to assume that plants such as wild herbs haven't changed much in 30,000 years so that the grassfed diet of wild palaeo aurochs won't be much different from the grassfed diet of modern cattle raised in relatively wild surroundings(ie access to herbs/grasses etc.). You'd have to provide far more proof re massive changes in plants(eaten by cattle) during that comparatively small period.

Secondly, the main reason for the interest in epigenetics is that humans have been shown to have had more changes in gene-expression than any other animal, (which is why 1 researcher claimed, recently, that despite the only 1.6% difference in DNA, chimps and humans are far more different to each other than imagined. Epigenetics is less relevant to cattle  as they haven't undergone such drastic evolutionary processes in that time(merely a question of reducing height/weight due to breeding). Besides, you'd have to come up with a hell of a lot of (very unlikely) proof  to support the notion that cattle have fully adapted to eating grainfed meats after just a mere handful of generations living on grains once the intensive farming phase started. In short, eating grainfed meat makes about as much sense, healthwise,  as eating horses raised on fish.

[rafonly]

"I'll easily be able to provide the grassfed meat studies when I'm back from holiday in august, there are plenty around."

that should be an interesting resource
for all readers

as for myself, i'm already convinced:
i won't eat grain fed or otherwise feedloted beef unless i want pimples in my legs & yeast-smelling stools

[invisible]

Off topic question but I would be interested in the comparison of yellow beef fat and white beef fat. I have eaten grain fed beef with yellow fat before. How is this possible? Doesn't grains make the beef fat always turns white? Did these cows eat less grains perhaps? Yellow fat is generally not desired by average consumers, makes it seem like it is from an older animal or be tougher (making it priced less which is why I resorted to eating it sometimes) - which is why grass-fed beef is slaughtered at less than 18 months so it wont develop the yellow fat from the beta-carotene stores and look 'worse' to average people who might buy it.