fish vs red meats

[Joy2012]

In the non-raw world,  "experts" tend to recommend fish over chicken over red meats. On the other hand, on this forum red meats appear to be valued most.  What is the reason for this? Is this based on what we think most of our ancesters ate? Or does consuming red meats result in more healing/health benefits in people's personal experiences?

[aLptHW4k4y]

We are a large percent of red meat ourselves, so red meat is kinda closer to what we mostly need.
I like to eat both fish and meat though, together they provide for pretty balanced nutrition.

[balancing-act]

I find if I eat red meat more than occasionally- like maybe every other week or once a week at the most- I feel too heavy. I can eat fish and chicken much more often. On the other hand, red meat is the most nourishing thing of all; I love it, and as long as I keep it to moderation my body goes crazy for it. It's just for me it needs to be special in order to do its magic as a food. Others may experience it differently. I'm really skinny- that may be part of it.

[eveheart]

My choice of grass-fed beef muscle and organs as food is based on a combination of personal taste preference, personal healing results (indigestion gone, arthritis gone, fatigue gone, female baldness gone, insomnia gone, constipation gone, etc.), price, and availability. I do not eat beef exclusively, but it's my main squeeze.

My choice to eat raw is based on some of the factors you mention (ancestral eating habits and personal healing experiences).

[Wattlebird]

Hi Joy2012

strive to nourish the trust in your sensory awareness, pre, during and post eating. The food preference, most agreeable/beneficial to your body at a particular time, will make itself known.

(And of course what food may be most agreeable to one, may be far less agreeable to another).

Very broadly speaking, from a shamanic perspective, fish (because they are cool blooded, live in water and generally less fatty) are considered more cooling to the body, whereas beef (because it is warm blooded land animal and mostly has heavier fat content) is considered more warming to the body.
In addition, these broad characteristics then lend themselves to certain types of healing/nourishment.
But very few people just eat beef or fish and so, other foods like nuts and seeds, or fruits, or veggies likewise have intrinsic qualities, that also have impact on overall homeostasis and harmony of the body. And there are other influences also.

The knowledge one can gather about food (whatever the perspective) can, and is, beneficial, but - for what its worth - I feel cultivating direct awareness of sensory signals and sensations is a major step in the overall harmonious functioning of the mind/body organism.

[Joy2012]

Thanks to all for your replies, which give me food for thought.

strive to nourish the trust in your sensory awareness, pre, during and post eating. The food preference, most agreeable/beneficial to your body at a particular time, will make itself known.

The knowledge one can gather about food (whatever the perspective) can, and is, beneficial, but - for what its worth - I feel cultivating direct awareness of sensory signals and sensations is a major step in the overall harmonious functioning of the mind/body organism.

I do not know how to trust my sensory signals. If I go by that, I would love to eat the sweetest fruits all day long...

[cherimoya_kid]

In the non-raw world,  "experts" tend to recommend fish over chicken over red meats. On the other hand, on this forum red meats appear to be valued most.

I actually eat meat rarely.  I do eat about a pound or more of raw fish/shellfish daily. 

I do think that humans are more adapted to red meat than fish.  However, ocean-caught wild fish live in an extremely high nutrient and mineral-rich environment.  No soil on the planet, or at least very few soils, can compare to the mineral mix in the oceans.  Plus, I can easily get VERY high-quality, unfrozen wild seafood at low prices.  This isn't true with grassfed beef.

I do not know how to trust my sensory signals. If I go by that, I would love to eat the sweetest fruits all day long...

Now see, I am the opposite.  I generally prefer fatty foods, although I do enjoy sweet foods too.  You can train yourself to enjoy fat more, though.  It just takes time. Retraining your instincts generally takes years for people raised on a regular junky American diet.

[Wattlebird]

"I do not know how to trust my sensory signals. If I go by that, I would love to eat the sweetest fruits all day long..."

Hi Joy2012
yes, intellectually it is easy to say this (and it may in fact be the case for you) ...but you may find a different phenomena actually takes place.
With watchful awareness, 'sweet and tasty' may become 'too sweet', or uncomfortably sweet, or starts to burn in the mouth, brings sensations of discomfort, etc when the bodies needs are met.
Because we live so much in our thoughts about things, sometimes we miss the subtle nuances and sensations that occur.
Kind wishes, J

[aLptHW4k4y]

I do not know how to trust my sensory signals. If I go by that, I would love to eat the sweetest fruits all day long...

I doubt it, at some point you'll start feeling sick.

[Joy2012]

I doubt it, at some point you'll start feeling sick.

Yes I exaggerated—just a little bit. 

Many thanks to all for your kind advice.  I will try to retrain my instincts. (Is this statement self-contradictory?)

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

Historically human settlements were concentrated near major bodies of water. Archeologists believe that most ancient settlements are submerged under former coastlines.

Recent discoveries have shown that Neanderthals ate many marine animals, and that H.erectus were skillful fishermen. Marine food must have been preferred due to abundance and ease of procurement.

Dr. Price was enamored with seafood and the rich fat soluble vitamins and minerals seafood contains. Small fish bones are the only verifiable and realistic source of calcium besides dairy.

It would be great to eat more marine foods, but in today’s world I think land animals are healthier as the oceans are being polluted and fish stocks are collapsing. Societies around the world must institute smart policies to improve the health of the oceans and rivers and manage our marine resources responsibly.

Then you and I can enjoy more seafood.   

[cherimoya_kid]

It would be great to eat more marine foods, but in today’s world I think land animals are healthier...

This is a blanket statement.  I would agree that it's important to avoid fish organs in large amounts, especially larger predatory fish, but I don't think the muscle meat of any species is particularly dangerous. I actually eat a lot of fatty fish, and have nothing but good results with it.

Sure, the fish that live near the raw sewage that some cities pump into the ocean are not fit for eating, but that's not happening everywhere that fish live. 

I also eat a lot of scallops, which are pretty much all muscle, and have excellent results.

If you're going to talk me out of seafood, you're going to have to reference specific test results on specific toxins from specific species at specific places, tested at specific times.

[CitrusHigh]

You should probably go do your own research cheri, as it's you that's going to be affected.

I agree with Muhammad, as much as I don't want to believe it, fish stocks are fucked, and in the broad sense of health including the planet as well as each individual creature, it is much healthier to eat sustainable land animals than it is to eat aquatic.  If the seas are to be repopulated to a sustainable level they're going to need a lot of compassion from us. That means very little fish consumption for a long time. That also means the removal of dams and cessation of pollution. The oceans are profoundly deep and rich in life, which is why it's so fucking incredible that we've managed to fish and poison them to the extents that we have. Until sustainable fish farming, ie permaculture, is widely implemented, and we give the ocean fisheries a break, we're continuing down a long, ugly road toward destruction and depletion.

Recommended Reading: Four Fish, available via demoid as an audiobook, or probably your local library.

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

Hello cherimoya_kid, my current position is yes, fish is good, but because of the reality which humankind has created we must be responsible with how we enjoy it. Heavy metal and chemical pollution in the oceans is common knowledge. Of course you can reduce the impact by eating certain fish i.e. smaller, fattier, farther from land, etc. But the fact is oceans and their denizens are contaminated and suffering more every day.

Industries pollute with methyl-mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals. Chemical runoff and PCB’s are infecting water systems. Plastics, oil spills, and shipping are also contaminating sea life, and the pièce de résistance, giant manmade continents of floating garbage and waste have emerged. Of all the things we’ve lost from the primal world, it is the oceans and waters which life itself depends on, which are the saddest losses.

Only a few hundred years ago the oceans were immense azure jewels of beauty and bounty. Here in eastern Canada the early explorers’ ships would frequently run aground upon schools of millions of fish, so plentiful were the fish in those days. It would be wonderful to go swimming and fishing in oceans and rivers which are clean, healthy, and sanguine with life.

Of course there is always hope: through education, activism, and legislation our societies can steer a course to restore our marine systems. As CitrusHigh mentioned, it will take sacrifice, discipline, and good managment on a global level, but having our oceans healthy and sustainable is worth it indeed.

[reyyzl]

We are a large percent of red meat ourselves, so red meat is kinda closer to what we mostly ...

I've only eaten meat that had the blood drained out of it.  Chickens, goats and pigs have red blood, fish not always.  Cows have red blood.  Drained, cows have red muscle meat, the others tend to be lighter, except tuna.  Why is human called long pig? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/long+pig Have you seen human flesh drained?  I'm told by soldiers human flesh is light color.

[PaleoPhil]

"Why is human called long pig? "

Because headhunters say that human flesh tastes something like pig. LOL Eating some of the flesh or organs (such as liver--which was originally believed to be the main seat of the soul) of a powerful enemy is supposed to give you some of his mana/spirit/power. In some cultures it was even seen as a courtesy to the enemy, to appease his spirit and give him new life by letting it come into you rather than just leave it to wander around without a host. I don't recommend eating long pig, though. LOL

[goodsamaritan]

Historically human settlements were concentrated near major bodies of water. Archeologists believe that most ancient settlements are submerged under former coastlines.

Recent discoveries have shown that Neanderthals ate many marine animals, and that H.erectus were skillful fishermen. Marine food must have been preferred due to abundance and ease of procurement.

Dr. Price was enamored with seafood and the rich fat soluble vitamins and minerals seafood contains. Small fish bones are the only verifiable and realistic source of calcium besides dairy.

It would be great to eat more marine foods, but in today’s world I think land animals are healthier as the oceans are being polluted and fish stocks are collapsing. Societies around the world must institute smart policies to improve the health of the oceans and rivers and manage our marine resources responsibly.

Then you and I can enjoy more seafood.   

I have no problems enjoying a large amount of sea food.
We got lots of great sea food here.
It's a matter of sourcing clean food.

[cherimoya_kid]

You should probably go do your own research cheri, as it's you that's going to be affected.

You should probably get real, and realize I don't give a damn. No offense, dude, but...I've been doing this a long time, and it's working for me very well.  You're not even 100% raw, and are a relative newbie.  You bring a lot of emotion and passion, which is what it takes to get there....but I bring knowledge, which is the result of years of passion and hard work. I'm already there, so to speak.  Not all the way, but farther along.

If all fish stocks were that polluted, then there'd be a lot more noise about it, like there is re: mercury.

[Joy2012]

cherymoya,  I hope your view regarding seafoods safety is correct, for I like salmon.

My brother told me that his foremer boss is diagnosed with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis).  His doctor said that the cause of his ALS is that there is much mercury inside his body, presumably caused by his daily consumption of wild-caught fish, which has been his main diet for years because he is rich enough to afford it. What will you say about this?

[eveheart]

My brother told me that his foremer boss is diagnosed with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis).  His doctor said that the cause of his ALS is that there is much mercury inside his body, presumably caused by his daily consumption of wild-caught fish, which has been his main diet for years because he is rich enough to afford it. What will you say about this?

Sounds like too much post hoc ergo propter hoc in his system. Dangerous stuff, that.

[RawZi]

His doctor said that the cause of his ALS is that there is much mercury inside his body, presumably caused by his daily consumption of wild-caught fish, which has been his main diet for years because he is rich enough to afford it. What will you say about this?

    His doctor is a raw foodist?  For years he ate all raw fish only and only saw negative outcome?  Was he intentionally making more money cause he craved fish and wanted enough money for what he got in fish?  Many rich people hate fish and eat lots of prime rib.

[CitrusHigh]

I thought that statement might be misunderstood. I think it's silly to demand that people produce proof. Obviously if they believe it it's good enough for them. My suggestion for you to go do the research for yourself is because that is for you, what do we care if you don't believe it. I know you're pretty well read and probably have satisfied yourself that your practices are healthful. Likewise, so have I. Though one day I would like to be 100% raw, I'm not because I enjoy the flavors of cooked foods enough that for me it's worth it. I've already reached the level of health that prior to this diet I thought was impossible, that is, I do not get sick and my major health issues have vanished. If I can do that while still eating a significant portion of hash browns and tacos, I think I'm sitting pretty! MmmMm. When I'm ready to mostly let those things go, I will!

In any case I'm not saying you can't eat fish healthfully Cheri, I'm saying it's not sustainable any way you slice it at the current rates things are fished. It's not just about you bruva.

This isn't a dick measuring competition, and the quality of knowledge is not directly proportional to the amount of time someone's been doing something. That is a fallacious way of looking at things.

You could probably live entirely on fish still, and more or less healthfully. But guess what, if every person on earth got their couple of portions of fish per week, stocks would be depleted in no time. As it is with fish consumption increasing we're not going to be able to keep up with demand. I repeat, ease up on the fish or there probably won't be much for your grandchildren, or theirs!

[aLptHW4k4y]

I'm not sure about that sustainability claim, there's a lot more ocean than land.

[CitrusHigh]

And this is what is so fascinating to me. How people can bury their heads so deep in their wishful thinking that they can't easily see things that are so incredibly, blatantly obvious right in front of their faces.

The natives used to be able to KICK fish up on shore here in the US because they were so plentiful. Have you ever seen fish populations like that other than the salmon runs? Does it mean anything to you at all that shrimp fisherman have to go in to deeper and deeper waters to make the kind of catches they used to with nets handcasted from shore? Does it mean anything that fishing companies go through one fishery after another, fishing this species down until they are not catching anything, then moving on to the next most desirable/abundant species.

Absolutely the ocean is massive! Which is a great comment about the magnitude of the destruction and overfishing we've accomplished! Yes, the ocean is marvelous, and if we walked away from fishing today and just let it breathe for even 20 years, most populations would rebound enormously. But that isn't happening is it! Quite the opposite. Fishing technology is getting more and more sophisticated and they are going deeper and deeper. Why are they going deeper? Because there's not much near the surface anymore.

It just ain't fucking sustainable, get over it.

I don't throw around stats too much because who knows if they're every reliable and a lot of times, just like "double blind" studies, they can be engineered to say whatever you want them to say. But since people here seem to go gaga over the stuff. here you go... Notice the pop. decline since the 60's.

http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bluefin.html

Do you realize the proportion of 40 years to the great scheme of things. How much is 40 years or so in relation to 100,000,000 years? 10,000,000,000? Need I take it any further? And those are the figures for just one species, this is happening all across the board with all of the commercial species...

That is the the definition of unsustainable...

[aLptHW4k4y]

Since when is depending on wild life sustainable? As far as I understood you're talking about wild life in oceans.

If fish would be farmed properly, like grass-fed meat for example.. I don't see how's that less sustainable than meat.