Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?

[KD]

Today, wild animals eating 100% raw food are getting degenerative disease, so even in the unlikely resolution of finding an exact balance that was workable 100,000+ years ago does not necessarily carry the solution for this problem - as mentioned above in terms of how we can thrive the best today with a range of knowledge. Even if the solution very well might be 'less meat' or something it doesn't change the highly researched idea that (raw) diets that burn sugars predominately are more likely to develop degenerative problems or at the very least - not have as many mechanisms to cure them. Ignoring this and bringing the focus to 'less of this or that' or 'closer to wild sources' seems to be tackling minutia that people even eating standard fare do not always have problems with. It becomes absurd that that level of 'extreme' attention is needed to avoid problems that arn't even universal issues in non raw,non paleo diets that by definition have worse quality food likely in less natural portions. Its pretty obvious other factors contribute to degeneration and people can't wave a wand and say that X people are in ideal conditions to weigh which things are bad when for 1000's of years people did eat diets high in meat and fat (even domesticated) and very little carbohydrate and did not suffer degenerative disease. 
 

[KD]

 
It turns out its also inaccurate that all other species seek out or even eat mostly glucose based diets. 
 
Other than outright easy examples, less meat in humans would still mean a huge portion of dietary fatty acids if one truly wanted to mimic the metabolized nutrition of animals like chimps. Even if chimps do represent the diet of a common ancestor that has relevance to modern humans, chimp digestion is so drastically different than ours that its accurate to say that they arn't even really eating glucose heavy diets. As hindgut fermenters, chimps and gorillas have a colon that comprises about 52 % of the total gut volume.  It houses microbes that ferment fiber, converting it to fatty acids that supply up to 65% of the animal’s energy requirements.  Human have a colon - in contrast - at 17 %  of total gut volume.  At most, microbial fermentation in the hindgut can provide about 10% of human energy requirements.  that is more than 50% less fatty acid production from carbohydrate consumption to supply energy in humans. not even including the intake from outright fats or proteins consumed in the hundreds of things chimps eat.

A sugar based diet for humans however, doesn't add up with the real evidence of which things were actually sustainable in nature (particularly when having all or mostly raw examples) and which avoided all signs of degeneration. Even when we can point to people in nature eating a range of things some had more degeneration than others. The issues are even worse for modern people that have to reverse problems and to eliminate more wastes than traditional peoples. Its suspected based on evidence that other than meeting poor nutritional requirements for humans, high sugar diets are generally poor as a mechanism for buffering environmental factors today AND removing already preexisting toxins. This is not necessarily because sugars are 'bad' in nature but even this CAN be argued as even chimps develop both tooth decay AND gum disease and die usually sooner to experience other issues as perhaps 'our caveman' with his meat diet. 
 
Even eating a variety of things or a certain kind of balance, which seems to be a modern 'common sense' thing doesn't seem to add up with the results people get eating closer to a meat/fat model in creating wellness. This along with actual anthropology does hint that this is a more natural approach, but it doesn't mean that those diets are entirely sustainable, don't carry their own problems, or result in the longest life. There should be the possibility of compromise on which diets are useful as a tool for which goal, specific healing, longevity etc..
---

baboons like chimps have been found prefering animal foods (and while not chimps)  have been found feeding almost exclusively on grasshoppers for two months [paraphrase]
p 127
William J Hamilton in Food and Evolution
http://books.google.com/books?id=xHYxSHr86T8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Director of the National Museum in Iceland has "definitely established" that during 600 years, 1200 to 1800 in Iceland, there were no dental cavities. The foods they ate were milk and milk products, mutton, beef and fish. [ Beef and milk products being a pre-modern but surely domesticated food.]

[goodsamaritan]

I for one, like KD's idea.  That we humans are high fat, majority animal food eaters.  At least, that's what feels right right now.  Animal food is the most efficient and most expedient and consistent (in my tropics).  Fruits are always changing, even if durian is great... you'd only get it in maybe 2 to 3 months of the year.

[Löwenherz]

You say "massive Amounts of the domesticated sugar bombs from Orkos" ... Could I ask you on which fact this statement is based ?

Which fact do you mean?

Orkos makes money by selling extremely sugary domesticated fruits like watermelons, durians and bananas. Everybody can download their catalogue. Nevertheless 'Morn Thong' etc. are not remotely 'natural' or wild. It's just marketing for a very special target group.

There has never been any problem of excess sugars

There are indeed massive problems caused by excess sugars and you know it. Even the instincto children at Montramé got dental cavities, not to mention all the fungal infections, mental disorders etc.

with a correctly practiced instincto.

Very weak argument, not seldom used by dietary gurus and ex dietary gurus.

All fruit sold by Orkos are grown in optimum conditions

Unfortunately the quality of Orkos products went greatly downhill in the last 2-3 years and today most of them are not better than in organic groceries. Today I don't recommend Orkos anymore.

and chosen to be as close as possible to the original strains.

Sounds wonderful, nevertheless it's just sales marketing.

It is impossible to have an adequate supply if you want to be limited to wild products only.

And it's the same with animal products.

But through a relearning of flavors, we adapt very well to the fruits and vegetables currently available

I can not understand that you still believe this illusion. The sugar from domesticated fruits ALWAYS overrides everything else. And that's the main reason why an 'instincto diet' never works as long as you don't use your intellect to limit your instinctive overloads.

But, of course, we can't 'relearn the flavors' of grass-fed beef, right?

The best evidence that this equilibrium is fully achieved is given by a very sensitive criterion: the inflammatory tendency.

Absolutely not. The damage caused by sugary fruits cannot be measured directly by inflammatory signs. These signs are better to detect PUFA damages.

It is matter of "sugar bombs" only in nutritional conditions where one ignores the signals from the senses

You get no signals because your senses are massively misled by all domesticated foods. Therefore 'instinctive eating' can become quickly very dangerous, for example by overloading with PUFAs because the Orkos almonds taste so good. High sugar + high PUFA = serious trouble.

, or else in case of cooked or seasoned food which leads to systematic misleading of the senses.

Watermelons and durians are as misleading as baked potatoes.

We can then easily cause sugar overloads, which explains the mistrust that has developed against them.

Of course, but most cooking traditions like the traditional French cuisine are high in protective saturated fats. Whereas many 'instinctos' ended up with massive problems from high plant PUFA ingestion, because they erroneously thought that overbred almonds and other unnatural products could be a healthy staple food for them.

Your basic assumption that raw is generally better than cooked is unfortunately completely inapropriate. Cooking is always non-optimal, but a wrong raw diet can be much worse.

Glucose is the number one fuel for all life forms.

That was common sense in the sixties. It's wrong.

It is of course not the sugar itself that should be demonized, but rather the changes we apply to foodstuffs to make them taste better than plain: it is these processing that leads to a permanent overload.

The overbreeding processes are the root of the problems. It's naive to think that Orkos bananas and durians can't lead to an permanent overload.

I'm really not interested in any further discussions about this instincto idea. It would be a just waste of time.

GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.

I recommend the posts from user 'Alphagruis' in this forum to all readers who want to read more about 'instincto'.

Löwenherz

[Löwenherz]

When I mentioned to Rosedale that the Bear had had cancer, he wasn't surprised one bit and indicated more would follow due to his large meat meals. 

Good point.

Beside cancer, 'The Bear' also suffered from heart disease and other problems. Therefore I never understood why so many zero carbers called him their role model.

Löwenherz

[PaleoPhil]

Which fact do you mean?

Orkos makes money by selling extremely sugary domesticated fruits like watermelons, durians and bananas. Everybody can download their catalogue. Nevertheless 'Morn Thong' etc. are not remotely 'natural' or wild. It's just marketing for a very special target group.

There are indeed massive problems caused by excess sugars and you know it. Even the instincto children at Montramé got dental cavities, not to mention all the fungal infections, mental disorders etc.

Very weak argument, not seldom used by dietary gurus and ex dietary gurus.

Unfortunately the quality of Orkos products went greatly downhill in the last 2-3 years and today most of them are not better than in organic groceries. Today I don't recommend Orkos anymore.

Sounds wonderful, nevertheless it's just sales marketing.

And it's the same with animal products.

I can not understand that you still believe this illusion. The sugar from domesticated fruits ALWAYS overrides everything else. And that's the main reason why an 'instincto diet' never works as long as you don't use your intellect to limit your instinctive overloads.

But, of course, we can't 'relearn the flavors' of grass-fed beef, right?

Absolutely not. The damage caused by sugary fruits cannot be measured directly by inflammatory signs. These signs are better to detect PUFA damages.

You get no signals because your senses are massively misled by all domesticated foods. Therefore 'instinctive eating' can become quickly very dangerous, for example by overloading with PUFAs because the Orkos almonds taste so good. High sugar + high PUFA = serious trouble.

Watermelons and durians are as misleading as baked potatoes.

Of course, but most cooking traditions like the traditional French cuisine are high in protective saturated fats. Whereas many 'instinctos' ended up with massive problems from high plant PUFA ingestion, because they erroneously thought that overbred almonds and other unnatural products could be a healthy staple food for them.

Your basic assumption that raw is generally better than cooked is unfortunately completely inapropriate. Cooking is always non-optimal, but a wrong raw diet can be much worse.

That was common sense in the sixties. It's wrong.

The overbreeding processes are the root of the problems. It's naive to think that Orkos bananas and durians can't lead to an permanent overload.

I'm really not interested in any further discussions about this instincto idea. It would be a just waste of time.

GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.

I recommend the posts from user 'Alphagruis' in this forum to all readers who want to read more about 'instincto'.

Löwenherz

Hmmm, wasn't someone complaining about long posts not long ago? LOL

[Paleo Donk]

Hi guys,

If I switched my diet regime from 100% domesticated animal products to a split 0f 29/71 (domesticated/wild) while diminishing my total intake of animal product from 77% to 42% and upping my wild fruit intake from 5% to 48% how much can I expect my life to improve?

What if I went down to 0% for domesticated animal product except for the occasional goat heart?

[zeno]

Hi guys,

If I switched my diet regime from 100% domesticated animal products to a split 0f 29/71 (domesticated/wild) while diminishing my total intake of animal product from 77% to 42% and upping my wild fruit intake from 5% to 48% how much can I expect my life to improve?

What if I went down to 0% for domesticated animal product except for the occasional goat heart?

I hope you're not serious. That's over-thinking in my opinion. Good grief just eat the best you can, man!

[TylerDurden]

I do wish people wouldn't keep on subscribing to the any raw or cooked saturated fat is fine/All PUFAs are always bad, nonsense. It's utter b*ll. There are now multiple studies proving that cooked saturated fats are bad - granted, these studies usually blame all saturated fats in general when the real problem is that cooking foods high in saturated fats creates the highest amount of heat-created toxins. As for the PUFA issues, I have seen, time and again, people like Ray Peat using dodgy studies focusing on very highly processed PUFAs to wrongly pretend that all PUFAs, even in unprocessed, raw foods, are unhealthy as well - not logical at all.

[HIT_it_RAW]

I do wish people wouldn't keep on subscribing to the any raw or cooked saturated fat is fine/All PUFAs are always bad, nonsense. It's utter b*ll. There are now multiple studies proving that cooked saturated fats are bad - granted, these studies usually blame all saturated fats in general when the real problem is that cooking foods high in saturated fats creates the highest amount of heat-created toxins. As for the PUFA issues, I have seen, time and again, people like Ray Peat using dodgy studies focusing on very highly processed PUFAs to wrongly pretend that all PUFAs, even in unprocessed, raw foods, are unhealthy as well - not logical at all.

pufas may not always be harmful but it is very hard to get them in that state. pufas are destroyed even by the smallest amounts of heat and very quickly oxidise, become rancid. Most good sources of pufas are either heated, irradiated or rancid. So i try to avoid them.

[TylerDurden]

Not really true, pufas are easily obtainable in raw form such as in raw seafood etc.. All one has to do is eat both saturated fats and PUFAs in their raw, unprocessed form, and then they are perfectly healthy. Simply put, processing/heating either saturated fats or pufas causes plenty of heat-created toxins to form etc., so neither are healthy in a processed or cooked  form.

[PaleoPhil]

That's interesting. I thought cooking PUFAs created the most toxins of the fats? Do you have any links I could check out? I agree that heating any fats, particularly to high temps, even the SFAs, is probably not wise. It's interesting that traditional forms of cooking do not typically involve heating in fats. I saw one gourmet cooking TV host say that even traditional Chinese wok cooking used a little water instead of fat (oil). If true, I wonder if the ancient Chinese knew about some problem with cooking with fat? Granted, oils probably were not commonly available long ago, but they could have used lard or tallow.

[Löwenherz]

Hmmm, wasn't someone complaining about long posts not long ago? LOL

Really??

My post was long but NOT complicated. 

Löwenherz

[Löwenherz]

Hi guys,

If I switched my diet regime from 100% domesticated animal products to a split 0f 29/71 (domesticated/wild) while diminishing my total intake of animal product from 77% to 42% and upping my wild fruit intake from 5% to 48% how much can I expect my life to improve?

What if I went down to 0% for domesticated animal product except for the occasional goat heart?

Ugh, chances are high that this diet could result in death in the very very long-run.

Löwenherz

[PaleoPhil]

Really??

My post was long but NOT complicated. 

Löwenherz

Hmmm, maybe I'll steal that excuse. ... Wait a minute, didn't you also complain about over-complicating things? 

[Löwenherz]

I do wish people wouldn't keep on subscribing to the any raw or cooked saturated fat is fine/All PUFAs are always bad, nonsense. It's utter b*ll.

Nice words. Sorry Tyler, there is enough evidence that high fat high plant PUFA diets are extremely deleterious, raw AND cooked, whereas cooked is worse.

And if you don't want to believe it, TRY it and talk about your experience. Such a diet is extremely pro-inflammatory. Especially people with sensitive skin can see the results very quickly.

Are you obsessed with heat-created toxins?

Please don't exaggerate. Of course, cooking causes toxins. But the more important question is: How much of these toxins can be handled by the human body. The air you breathe in London or elsewhere also contains lots of toxins. My lively 90 year old grandmother has eaten pasteurized butter EVERY single day for at least (!) 50 years. Could you please explain me why she is still alive?

Löwenherz

[Löwenherz]

Not really true, pufas are easily obtainable in raw form such as in raw seafood etc.. All one has to do is eat both saturated fats and PUFAs in their raw, unprocessed form, and then they are perfectly healthy.

Not really true for plant PUFAs if you eat them in high amounts.

Löwenherz

[TylerDurden]

Nice words. Sorry Tyler, there is enough evidence that high fat high plant PUFA diets are extremely deleterious, raw AND cooked, whereas cooked is worse.

And if you don't want to believe it, TRY it and talk about your experience. Such a diet is extremely pro-inflammatory. Especially people with sensitive skin can see the results very quickly.

Are you obsessed with heat-created toxins?

Please don't exaggerate. Of course, cooking causes toxins. But the more important question is: How much of these toxins can be handled by the human body. The air you breathe in London or elsewhere also contains lots of toxins. My lively 90 year old grandmother has eaten pasteurized butter EVERY single day for at least (!) 50 years. Could you please explain me why she is still alive?

Löwenherz

  You are a fool, you know. Any basic search online will show you that cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fats such as heated dairy products, have the highest load of heat-created toxins, much much higher than cooked plant foods, however PUFA-rich they might be:-

"Animal-derived foods that are high in fat and protein are
generally AGE-rich and prone to new AGE formation
during cooking. In contrast, carbohydrate-rich foods such
as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and milk contain rel-
atively few AGEs, even after cooking." taken from:-

PDF file:-  "Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet"

As for being alive, many people are nowadays propped up by modern medicine, whereas they would all have died out decades before, if they hadn't had access to modern treatment re artificial hips and other nonsense. Means nothing, your 90-year-old quip.

As for my own experience, I did far better on a (largely-cooked) 100 percent vegan diet than I ever did on cooked-palaeo, for instance. In short, the whole PUFA issue is a waste of time.

[HIT_it_RAW]

As for my own experience, I did far better on a (largely-cooked) 100 percent vegan diet than I ever did on cooked-palaeo, for instance. In short, the whole PUFA issue is a waste of time.

That's interesting because I did way, way better on an animal product heavy cooked paleo diet than on a largely vegetarian diet. When I was on a largely vegetarian cooked diet I always lacked energy and was cold very fast. Also recovery and healing were seriously compromised. A cooked paleo diet gave me steady energy, good recovery from exercise and general well being. RPD off course does the same and more.

[Paleo Donk]

  You are a fool, you know.

You spend all your time with dieting and your most deleterious health issue is right here.

[Paleo Donk]

Ugh, chances are high that this diet could result in death in the very very long-run.

Löwenherz

What can I do if I want to be able to climb small hills up to and beyond the age of 100 like TD will?

[TylerDurden]

"Another confounding issue may be the formation of exogenous (outside the body) advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) and oxidation products generated during cooking, which it appears some of the studies have not controlled for. It has been suggested that, "given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-(saturated)fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGEs[46]" taken from, more or less :-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long

[TylerDurden]

That's interesting because I did way, way better on an animal product heavy cooked paleo diet than on a largely vegetarian diet. When I was on a largely vegetarian cooked diet I always lacked energy and was cold very fast. Also recovery and healing were seriously compromised. A cooked paleo diet gave me steady energy, good recovery from exercise and general well being. RPD off course does the same and more.

  Naturally. Everybody has different levels of illness/metabolic requirements etc. which means they will be more prone to some problems on one type of diet but less so on another type of diet.

[TylerDurden]

You spend all your time with dieting and your most deleterious health issue is right here.

  Don't be childish. Besides, I don't spend all my time with dieting. I have already recovered from all my past issues pre-RPD diet, so I really don't need to experiment or diet any more. My only interest, here, is to learn any  new(or old) information that I might otherwise have missed and to help others avoid common mistakes with this diet(such as focusing too much on saturated fats, for example).

[GCB]

Cherimoya kid :
I don’t think my wife had eaten cake before her cancer appeared. She certainly would have told me. It will be one more rumor around instinctotherapy – of which these forums are riddled. But I had never heard of it. Anyway thank you for letting me know about it.

But its true that after she knew she had a cancer, she was quite distressed and she took Renutril in the last few weeks, but this is obviously not what induced her cancer a couple of years earlier. What made me sorry at the time, is that she refused to do the only thing that could have improved her state: stop eating large rations of beef daily.

General answer:
I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to regulation of food intake by the change in taste: beef, pork and mutton do not change flavor normally, and even less when eaten with fat. Even for an experienced instincto, it is extremely difficult to know where the instinctive stop is.

The phenomenon is explained by the fact that farmers have unconsciously selected these animals during thousands of years. It is always the animals providing the best tasting meat (and therefore a taste varying as little as possible to unpleasant) that have been promoted in reproduction. Simply because their meat seemed better: when you eat regularly a natural food, its taste becomes less pleasant. Farmers were certainly in a state of saturation and have been automatically searching for the animals they considered the most palatable. It can be seen today when comparing the drift of beef with bison, or sheep with mouflon, or pork with wild boar.

That's why I recommend to check regularly with wild meat (goose is ideal!) if there is no overload: otherwise we can not know. Eating a palm of meat, as recommended by Rosendale, does not guarantee a proper regulation: sometimes you have to remove the meat for a while to find a satisfactory balance, and on the contrary sometimes you need larger rations. We cannot predict it, simply because nobody knows anything about the actual needs and capacities of an organism at a given time.

As for the response to Löwenherz, it comes down very well in line:

GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.

So, please tell me actual cases (not rumors) on which you base this statement.

About glucose :

Glucose: as an energy source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose

Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans. Use of glucose may be by either aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key source of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing approximately 3.75 kilocalories (16 kilojoules) of food energy per gram.[4] Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle (TCAC), glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy sources, mostly in the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the concentration of glucose in the blood. A high fasting blood sugar level is an indication of prediabetic and diabetic conditions.

Glucose is a primary source of energy for the brain, and hence its availability influences psychological processes. When glucose is low, psychological processes requiring mental effort (e.g., self-control, effortful decision-making) are impaired.[5][6][7][8]