My merge with Raw Paleo

[PaleoPhil]

I don't buy that. For example, Lex has mentioned weight-gaining problems when fat-intake is around 80% of calories or above.

I'll let Lex respond to that one.

And then there's the obvious problem that , in Palaeo times, fat-intake was inevitably much lower, given the lack of grainfed meats etc. So, a "healthy" fat-intake should be much, much lower, even on ZC.

"Inevitably"? I don't buy THAT. I used to lean towards agreeing with Cordain and you on this, but further study of research and others' experiences and my own experience and additional research that has come out recently, such as the Qesem Cave research, points toward higher fat consumption levels via selective hunting of fattier animals and selective consumption of fattier parts of animals during the Stone Age and even among more recent HGs. More confirmatory research is needed, but this is the direction that the evidence is currently pointing. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this at present. I suspect that your view on this is very much in the minority here, but if new evidence arises that supports the low-fat Stone Age meat eating I will consider it (and that doesn't mean old studies or finds from the 1970s that I've probably already reviewed--I mean actual new evidence from recent months and going forward).

[TylerDurden]

This is silly. If you were remotely honest, you would have to admit that the low-fat dogma is supremely prevalent in palaeo studies and mainstream scientific theories. The high-fat theory is very rare, and somewhat suspect. Cordain made some very clear points when he knocked down Sally Fallon's absurd diatribe against him, which are, on a scientific level, extremely difficult to dispute. I'm referring to the difficulty wild animals have in getting fatter on a grassfed diet(as opposed to grainfed), the issue of winter and famine etc. etc.Even selective selection of fat doesn't remotely compensate for those factors(and we have to remember that palaeo tribes, were constantly in danger of famine at various times, so that they simply didn't have the regular luxury of being able to select only high-fat organs and the like).

[PaleoPhil]

This is silly. If you were remotely honest,...

Well if you don't consider me remotely honest on this subject then further discussion is pointless.

[van]

Tyler you might like to take a position of not needing to win a debate.  For this isn't a debate contest.   I go both ways.  But then the inuit had plenty of fat.  The plains indians could selectively kill older fat buffalo, and eat all the marrow, tongue, brains, kidney fat that they would have in every animal.  There weren't other sources of carbs out on the plains.  It is the indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam that I wonder about.  Deer, for instance usually don't have much fat on them.  But then again, there aren't too many carbs in the woods year around.  People do mention dried acorns and berries, and some roots.  But for roots, they had to be cooked.  So how did they exist before fire/cooking?

[cherimoya_kid]

  It is the indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam that I wonder about.  Deer, for instance usually don't have much fat on them.  But then again, there aren't too many carbs in the woods year around.  People do mention dried acorns and berries, and some roots.  But for roots, they had to be cooked.  So how did they exist before fire/cooking?

There were other animals that were abundant in the woods of North America besides deer.  Wild turkeys and other birds were very abundant.  There were black bear, as well as a number of smaller mammals like rabbits, squirrel, etc., which, while not having much fat, can be killed easily and in fairly large numbers, and the fat eaten preferentially.  Black bears have a LOT of fat on them, particularly in the late summer/fall, and the Indians would often use bear fat as an all-over skin ointment, as well as eating it.

[Hannibal]

and we have to remember that palaeo tribes, were constantly in danger of famine at various times, so that they simply didn't have the regular luxury of being able to select only high-fat organs and the like

That's true
But because of the times when they ate low-fat meals they didn't feal good, were more prone to diseases, etc.
They desperately looked for fat because they knew its importance re health.

[TylerDurden]

The mention of the Inuit is the only really undeniable part of the high-fat theory. But few other peoples had access to animals so rich in fatty blubber. I mean, the fat on a 100% grassfed cow(after 5 years of growth) is unlikely to be as much as, say, a walrus or sea-lion of similiar weight, surely? Does anyone have the data re this comparison?

One of the things that I find problematic, though, is that humans have specific cravings for fats and sugars. The standard explanation is that we have those cravings because fats and sugars are rare in the wild. On a personal note, when I'm consuming all that raw marrow most days, I'm acutely aware that this is way more than what I would get in the wild.

[Hannibal]

It's just a simple fact that glycogen is a muscles main fuel source, not protein or fat. It is the most basic, readily form of energy and that is what athletes need. In fact, trying to build a good amount of muscle is self-defeating in the long run without some foundation of energy coming from carbohydrates because if you're not spiking your insulin after working out hard, your body will REMAIN in a catabolic state where muscle tissue will be consumed for energy, not glycogen.

What about intramuscular triglycerides (IMTG)?  Here some link - http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa108.htm
Dr. Greg Ellis researched it quite well and they seem to be very good fuel re bodybulding.
You can get quite a lot of muscle mass on VLCKD (research done by Cassandra Forsythe).

[Hannibal]

The bone-analysis theory though seems to be in a lot of trouble. For example, there was that study a few years back which tried to claim that Neanderthals ate an all-meat diet consisting of mostly meat from large wild game such as  mammoths. The study was subsequently found to be totally flawed with Neanderthals shown as having eaten a wide variety of plant foods as well as eating a variety of wild game not just the large mammals.

But they ate mainly cooked meat and therefore were prone to arthritis and were overall not so healthy

Mamo Wolde - winner of the marathon at the 1968 Summer Olympics
He ate meat and fat with only 1-2% of carbs.

[TylerDurden]

But they ate mainly cooked meat and therefore were prone to arthritis and were overall not so healthy

I never suggested that the Neanderthals were healthy.

Mamo Wolde - winner of the marathon at the 1968 Summer Olympics
He ate meat and fat with only 1-2% of carbs.

The only claim I've ever heard of re ZC athletes  is that Mamo Wolde claim. He's no longer alive to corroborate the claim so I'm rather suspicious to say the least. And the traditional Ethiopian diet contains plenty of vegetables:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_cuisine

[Hannibal]

And the traditional Ethiopian diet contains plenty of vegetables:-

It's modern traditional Ehtiopian diet.
Herodot written in 5th century BC that Ethiopians lived off the meat, fat and dairy and their life expectancy was as much as 120 years.

[TylerDurden]

It's modern traditional Ehtiopian diet.
Herodot written in 5th century BC that Ethiopians lived off the meat, fat and dairy and their life expectancy was as much as 120 years.

Well, it's the diet of the last few centuries(kitfo and vegetables etc. have been around for very long). As for Herodotus, he's not a reliable historian, I once wholeheartedly believed Herodotus' claim that every Babylonian woman practised a form of sacred prostitution prior to marriage - turned out it was, at least highly exaggerated, or , most likely, completely wrong as an assumption.

[DeadRamones]

So I took a break from VLC RAF for the weekend. To celebrate my "no more night work, back to day work." I ate some cooked food Friday night, cooked food Saturday night w/friends, & cooked breakfast w/ my GF Sunday morning.

Big mistake. Saturday morning I felt a little bloated so I just didn't eat till I meet up with my friends at night. Sunday morning I felt okay,until my GF & I made some breakfast. She doesn't know I'm into RAF. So we made breakfast together. I made 3/4lb of sausage for myself(as rare as possible without grossing her out) but she cooked the eggs. It tasted great!

After about an hour it felt like I drank a gallon of water & it lasted all day. I felt a little better when I woke up, but once I went into work & started moving. I got the same feeling. Like I drank to much water, & then started getting hiccups.

Although I'm very disappointed in myself for acting that way. I let my HAPPY emotion get the best of me & derailed a whole week of VLC RAF. I know it's nothing serious w/ my body. I'm guessing I stressed out my stomach to much with the cooked food binge. I'm just going to fast the rest of the day today. I'll start VLC RAF only again tomorrow. I definitely learned my lesson.

[DeadRamones]

Back on track. I've cleaned up alot & now after 2months off I'm back to working out. I feel pretty good. I thought I was going to gass quickly rolling Weds night. But I actually felt somewhat normal. My strength was the same but my gass suffered slightly. Not enough to overwhelm me though.

My GF's mother went hunting a while ago & tagged herself a bear. She plans on making it into a carpet & giving out the meat. She ate some & so far swears by it. I can't wait to try it.

[William]

My GF's mother went hunting a while ago & tagged herself a bear. She plans on making it into a carpet & giving out the meat. She ate some & so far swears by it. I can't wait to try it.

Fat! Lots of fat on a bear at this time of year, and I have a lot of trouble getting pure animal fat. My guess is that this (fall bear) was a traditional source of the fat/tallow used in making pemmican, and is of great value for those of us on a zero carb diet.
What did she do with it? Did you ask for some?

[DeadRamones]

She's making a rug out of him. Yea she's going to give me some meat & allot of bones for my dogs. I'll try to convince her for extra fatty cuts. She ate some so far & she loves it. I have yet to try it.

[RawZi]

I go both ways.  But then the inuit had plenty of fat.  The plains indians could selectively kill older fat buffalo, and eat all the marrow, tongue, brains, kidney fat that they would have in every animal.  There weren't other sources of carbs out on the plains.  It is the indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam that I wonder about.  Deer, for instance usually don't have much fat on them.  But then again, there aren't too many carbs in the woods year around.  People do mention dried acorns and berries, and some roots.  But for roots, they had to be cooked.  So how did they exist before fire/cooking?

    Maybe they drank the animals' blood when they killed it.  Blood is supposed to have a high concentration of Vitamin D, which has fat I believe.  Blood doesn't seem to have fat to me, but it must.  Wild animals in cold weather may have a lot more fat in their blood.  Maybe they wouldn't have to drink it all right away.  Another link I found on the forum here said blood can be allowed to dry in bowls and then eaten.

[TylerDurden]

Aieee!  This really violates my animal-rights ethos! I mean, wild hares are 1 thing but bears! I remember a terrible, recent story about Bruno the Bear being killed in Germany as a result of a retard of  a German minister who wanted to kill that bear at all costs merely because the bear wanted to ruffle through garbage left by humans in various areas. Yes, I know it's "palaeo" etc., but, really, can't we have some compassion for some of the few  wild species we still have. Wild hares may still be in abundance, but bears are in a tiny minority, and it's absolutely criminal to kill them, IMO.

*This sort of thing almost makes me go raw vegan*

[William]

Bears are not a tiny minority where I live, and while not considered a pest, they sometimes deliberately kill someone. When this happens, it is the custom to kill every bear that might have done it.
The German minister was right.

The Indians living in the woods where buffalo didn't roam got all the fat they needed for the winter from bears; all of them are obese in the fall. It seems that DR is not aware of this, as he could have asked for pure fat, and that is not intramuscular, it's under the skin.

[PaleoPhil]

Yeah, relax Tyler. Not all bears are in a tiny minority. Just a few years ago I sampled bear meat from a black bear that had charged my brother-in-law and he it shot not far from his house. There are MORE bears in his neighborhood today than there were then and there are so many now here in VT that there have been problems, in part because there are not as many hunters as there used to be (http://www.scenesofvermont.com/blackbears.html). The youths are not continuing the tradition of hunting to the extent of the earlier generations (instead they're playing video games and watching TV).

[DeadRamones]

Bears are problematic by me. They constantly come into towns scavenging through stuff. From what I believe the NJ bear hunting season is still new(maybe 3 or so years ago, it was open)

 Well, it's not like this bear was killed for no reason. We are eating it's meat & using his fur.

[PaleoPhil]

Yeah, a lot of the Northeastern states have had growing populations of bear, deer, coyotes, racoons, etc., because there are so few hunters these days and the voters won't let the rangers trap or shoot the animals either, so they overpopulate and slowly starve to death, and end up entering the suburbs looking for food, out of desperation (and hopefully eat some of the idiots who voted against culling their numbers). Damn those misguided do-gooders!

Granted, we've got too many humans too, but at least the #'s of human births in this country have been going down.

Glad you're using lots of the animal. That's the best way to do it, in my opinion. I wouldn't fish unless I was eating what I caught and using as much of it as I could manage. Same goes for when I start hunting. No sport/trophy hunting for me. Only so-called "subsistence" hunting.

[TylerDurden]

I disagree re the notion that one should kill any animal that kills a human or scavenges through human rubbish. The sole reason for wild animals going through rubbish is because much of their traditional prey is killed off by humans and their environment is impoverished by continued human exploitation of the land. It would be better for humans to be killed off instead. That way, there'd be less threat to endangered species etc.

As for the issue of killing animals that kill humans, I always remember John Aspinall pointing out, more or less, that there are only something like 700 mountain gorillas compared to 7(now?) billion humans , which means that 1 mountain gorilla is worth 10 million human lives. So, on that basis, one shouldn't  be allowed to hunt and kill  1 mountain gorilla until 10 million human lives have been lost as a result of mountain gorillas killing them. Same principle applies to other wild animals.

Here's a  quotation from Aspinall:-

"      “The sanctity of human life is the most dangerous sophistry ever propagated by philosophy and it is all too well rooted. Because if it means anything it means the in-sanctity of species which are not human.”

There is 1 good point in that that bear was killed for food. Killing for the purpose of getting a trophy would be another matter.

I suppose one reason why North Americans seem more blase about this issue than me is because you still have a decent network of large national parks in some areas(though you've still got problems with over-exploitation of land). In my own case, as a European, I am deeply ashamed of the fact that most wild areas(especially in the UK) have been largely wiped out, with only corner-pockets here and there still left(and much of that isn't even truly wild, being "managed" by humans. It's the case that people appreciate something far more when they realise it's virtually no longer available, which is why I'm rather militant on the issue and react badly to standard European news items of farmers or hunters killing endangered lynxes and bears  or protesting against the reintroduction of species previously killed off(there are some fools who still protest against the proposals to reintroduce wolves and bears into the UK, for example).

Simply put, as long as human life is valued more than animal-life, we're going to see the eventual extinction of most species, other than a few domesticated ones.And that would be a shame.

The claim that we are reducing our population (if only in the future - currently, world human population is rising) doesn't really mean anything. As we've seen, humans have been becoming ever more adept at exploiting their environment, so that in 200 years time, say, 1 human being will be able to do far more damage to the environment than 1 human being of today, simply due to possessing more advanced technology etc.

*Sorry for preaching. I realise I probably sound very extremist on this issue, I just thought this is a point that had to be made.

[yon yonson]

as a green anarchist, i agree with tyler for the most part. but, the black bear killed in question is not really an endangered species. from what i can tell they're thriving in many places in the US. furthermore, it wasnt just killed for sport, it was killed for food. i don't see anything wrong with this particular incident, but tyler is on the money with his general spiel. we've gotta respect wild animals and the environment way more in order to survive as a species.

[TylerDurden]

as a green anarchist, i agree with tyler for the most part. but, the black bear killed in question is not really an endangered species. from what i can tell they're thriving in many places in the US. furthermore, it wasnt just killed for sport, it was killed for food. i don't see anything wrong with this particular incident, but tyler is on the money with his general spiel. we've gotta respect wild animals and the environment way more in order to survive as a species.

Well, bears as a whole, throughout the world, are definitely not  thriving, so the fact that bears are thriving in a very few areas isn't all that relevant. I'd understand it if they relocated brown bears from North America to Europe, say, but otherwise it doesn't make sense. And current wildlife populations are microscopic by comparison to the levels of wildlife as little as 500 years ago.Realistically, what we need is WWIII - look at what happened when humans fled from Czernobyl - the wildlife in the area started exploding in numbers, purely because there was no human exploitation of the environment any more.

I seriously believe that if we go on as we do now, we'll end up in a few centuries with urban parks containing just 1 tree etc.