The "Bear" Is Lieing?

[Sully]

I found this on the zerocarbage forum, it is not entirely true in my opinion.... What do you think?

"The Bear Wrote:
I have eaten nothing but sirloin steaks for months on end, but I do like eggs cheese, many cuts of meat, even organs like liver tongue kidneys and brains (although the Inuit never eat any of them- and most likely neither did the true paleo hunters). Fish and chicken are nice too, in fact I have never 'met' an animal I would not eat."


The eskimos never ate organs? THis must not be true.I also have seen a old video of an Eskimo man gathering sea bird eggs on a cliff.

[Sully]

He could have said they only ate them rarely. Also even lions eat the organs first, right?

[Nicola]

organs like liver tongue kidneys and brains (although the Inuit never eat any of them- and most likely neither did the true paleo hunters).

The eskimos never ate organs? THis must not be true.I also have seen a old video of an Eskimo man gathering sea bird eggs on a cliff.

Charles mentions the same too:

http://www.zerocarbage.com/

read (under comments) this friendly discusion between Charles and Bruce (Bruce runs the AV-Skeptics Yahoo Group):

http://yoursacredself.blogspot.com/2008/11/fump-day-5.html

Nicola

[Raw Kyle]

I find that very hard to believe since Weston Price showed several tribes not as carnivorous as the Eskimo that consumed the organs; I believe the North American Indians were said to consume them first.

[goodsamaritan]

I think the Bear is writing from his point of view, what works for him so far.

[lex_rooker]

About 10 years ago read a detailed account of the Lewis and Clarke expedition.  I think the name of the book was "The Journals of Lewis and Clark" and it was about 600 pages long.  Lewis mentioned several times in his Journals that when they stopped and hunted game, the natives would consume the organs and other offal that the "civilized" explorers discarded.  He also made a point to mention that the natives ate these items raw while the expedition team cooked their food.

I don't think the Bear is intentionally lying.  He just states his opinions as though they were facts.  This is the reason that I don't take what any guru says as gospel.  Often what they say is just their opinion stated as fact with no objective testing to back it up.  When a guru does site the occasional "reference", more often than not the reference is just another guru's opinion, again with no supporting evidence.  It never hurts to question the status quo and do your own research.

Lex   

[Guittarman03]

Lets be real.  If you are trying to survive in one of the harshest of climates the planet has to offer, when you have food right in front of you, when times of shortage come as they always do, are you telling me they wouldn't have eaten almost the entire animal?  Why would you hunt for another animal when you have plenty of fat (brains) and protein (liver/kidneys/etc) right in front of you?  Not to mention that in most hunter-gatherer tribes, organs are the most highly valued portions of the animal.

No offense to anyone, but I think this idea of zero carb is unrealistic (from a purely paleo view) and goes a little too far.  Thick muscle meats contain plenty of glycogen (carbs).  Apparently so do brains and liver.  We clearly ate lots of insects through our entire evolutionary history including modern times, and guess what, they generally contain a significant amount of carbs.  And when you're working out (as in perhaps, on the hunt), you will no doubt get a little hungry/thirsty.  Fruit is one of the best ways to alleviate both of these w/o diverting much energy (hardly any) to the digestive system.  Would our paleo ancestors have just looked away at a snack full of water, nutrients, and sugar to give them an extra boost?  Especially on a long perhaps unsuccessful hunt and in times of shortage?  Really, it just doesn't make sense.  Our bodies have been adapted to eat carbs in varying degrees, whether it is from muscle meats, organs, insects, or fruit (not to mention nuts, vegetables, and tubers - though I generally consider these to be less than ideal). 

Now don't get me wrong.  I eat few carbs on any given day (5-12% of my total calories), I think that people generally eat way too many, and that it is ideal to get most of your calories from fatty meat.  But consumption of carbs is nearly unavoidable, and furthermore, offers a number of clear survival advantages.  From a purely historic/evolutionary/genetic standpoint, it is more than clear that carbs played a vital role throughout our evolutionary history. 

[lex_rooker]

From a purely historic/evolutionary/genetic standpoint, it is more than clear that carbs played a vital role throughout our evolutionary history. 

Interesting that what is so clear to you is not nearly so clear to me.  Today dogs and cats are routinely fed a diet of mostly carbs and yet few would argue that this is their natural food.  Based on your scenario we should expect that a cat would feast on berries and wild grapes to get energy while hunting rodents and other small game. 

Just because modern humans have adopted a high level of carb intake does not mean that this is/was our natural food.  I've actually attempted to survive in the wild eating just wild plant based foods.  I assure you that without intensive agriculture there isn't much available and what is available is tough, bitter, sour, and fruits are very small and mostly seed.  Those big juicy apples, plums, peaches, grapes, and pears you see in your local supermarket just don't exist in the wild.  Wild berries and grapes are about the size of a small pea and mostly seed.  Wild plums are about the size of a shelled almond and the flesh is about 1 mm (1/32") thick and covered with a very tough skin.  It would take many dozens of them to equal one small plum from the supermarket - hardly an energy boosting snack.

I hate to disappoint you but the Garden of Eden - chock full of luscious fruits just for the picking - doesn't exist in most of nature.  If you don't believe me, trade in your designer jeans for a sharp stick and a few rocks like I did, and head out to the wilderness to see for yourself.  It's quite an education. 

Lex   

[Guittarman03]

I think you misunderstand the basics of what I was getting at.  To start, again, I eat very few carbs.  I eat 2-3 lbs of meat every day including beef, liver, oysters, chicken, eggs, and fish.  I also eat a mix of berries, coconut water, papaya, tomato, and peppers, depending on taste, but rarely more than 100g carbs in a day - thats like 3 ounces.  It seems that a high fat/protein diet with SOME carbs is ideal; but the idea that humans are not well evolved to eat ANY carbs seems somewhat bunk, once you consider what is available in the wild.  I will reiterate later, but first I would like to address some of your comments: 

I've actually attempted to survive in the wild eating just wild plant based foods.  I assure you that without intensive agriculture there isn't much available and what is available is tough, bitter, sour, and fruits are very small and mostly seed.  Those big juicy apples, plums, peaches, grapes, and pears you see in your local supermarket just don't exist in the wild.  Wild berries and grapes are about the size of a small pea and mostly seed.  Wild plums are about the size of a shelled almond and the flesh is about 1 mm (1/32") thick and covered with a very tough skin.  It would take many dozens of them to equal one small plum from the supermarket - hardly an energy boosting snack.

I hate to disappoint you but the Garden of Eden - chock full of luscious fruits just for the picking - doesn't exist in most of nature

I never mentioned anything resembling a 'garden of eden' as you describe - more like you're putting words in my mouth.  The situtation you described would seem to support the idea that we would have gotten most of our food from animal sources, but there are fruits to supplement in limited quantities depending on climate and season.  By your own admission you survived for at least a time in the wild solely from plant based material.  My parents have a wild grape vine and, though sour, with larger seeds and slightly smaller than store bought grapes, 10-15 minutes of snacking could be very rejeuvinating and rehydrating - and we totally neglect this grape vine.

Are you claiming that humans that happened upon tomatoes, melons, grapes, avocado, papaya, strawberries, oranges, etc, never ate them?
Are you claiming that humans never ate fruit in our evolutionary history? 

I hate to disappoint you but the Garden of Eden - chock full of luscious fruits just for the picking - doesn't exist in most of nature.  If you don't believe me, trade in your designer jeans for a sharp stick and a few rocks like I did, and head out to the wilderness to see for yourself.  It's quite an education.

Okay now your just attacking me for my cool jeans and portraying me as poorly educated.  I'm not here to attack anyone, just to discuss information that we each have to share; and use that to try and surmise the most likely realities in our evolutionary past.

So on that note, insects.  They often contain a significant amount of carbs, and I think even cats eat insects.  Or are you claiming that we never ate these either in our evolutionary history?  Also there is glycogen to consider.  Carbs found in muscle meats, liver, and brains to some extent.  How are these carbs even avoidable?

So to sum up: 
Fruit can offer our a distinct energy and hydration advantage depending on the situation.
Carbs are inescapable when consuming heavy meat, liver, or brains; and widely available in easy to catch insects.
So, when trading in one's pair of cool pants for the wild life, carbs would mostly likely be a part of reality, even if only in small quantities.
Thus, our bodies have evolved to process and benefit from carbs in at least moderate amounts.
This does not mean that you cannot thrive without them either - but I know that I don't. 


 

[JaX]

I don't really understand why so many of you (especially zero carbers) are relying on The Bear for nutritional advice, taking his writings as the holy rules for eating.

I have gone through many of his posts and he is outright wrong on numerous issues. But hey, he's right 50% of the time, so that makes it good enough, right?

Furthermore, The Bear doesn't believe cancer can be caused by diet:

Cancer is not caused by, or prevented by diet.

(quote by The Bear, http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/Bear_s_Words_Of_Wisdom_about22.html)

Although he does in an other post say something completely OPPOSITE:

With respect to breast cancer, I have noticed that the rate of increase is inversely proportional to the replacement of animal fat with vegetable oils, primarily unsat., in the general diet.

(oh yea Dr. The Bear has "noticed" this "inverse proportion" as if he is a scientists who has studied breast cancer for years)

Isn't his later post a contradiction of what he just said before.

When you find such HUGE contraindications in any guru's/"health experts" own words then it is no question that there are lies somewhere.

Has anyone actually met up with the bear? Can you actually meet him in person, like you can meet AV at seminars,etc? Is The Bear purely an internet phenomenon?

If he's purely internet based then you really have to watch out. How can you base your diet on an unknown person's posts on the internet? Who knows if he is even following what he is preaching himself? Just like those fruitarian gurus on the internet who supposedly eat only fruit, say everything about their health is great, and never admit to their teeth falling out and the binges they often have, I don't think anyone should take The Bear's advice too seriously. 

[TylerDurden]

Couple of points:-

First of all, the amounts of insects available in the wild is very, very low. To get insects in appreciable quantities to form more than 0.1% of one's diet, one would have to be near a termite-mound or the equivalent, not a common feature in most parts of the world. Strictly speaking, the amount of effort needed to capture insects in appreciable quantities for a whole tribe is far greater than the amount of effort needed to bring down 1 very large fat-heavy mammoth or other land-mammal. I'd agree that hunter-gatherers had insects/grubs as an occasional snack, but they could never form a significant part of the diet.

As for carbs in organs, I wasn't aware that brains had any carbs? Yes, liver has some carbs, but unless one is eating only liver, it's unlikely to be a large enough amount to matter - besides, carbs in animal-flesh may well be more digestible than plant-carbs for all we know - I, for example, find that plant-fats are much less useful for my body than animal-fats.

Re organs:- The ONLY person that anyone can quote as claiming that the Eskimoes ate hardly any organs at all is Vilhjalmur Stefansson. Every single other Arctic explorer (or Arctic-visiting nutritionist like Weston-Price) has pointed out that the Eskimosdo indeed eat plenty of organ-meats. And, similiarly, it's true that most hunter-gatherer tribes in general prize the organ-meats above all else. Stefansson had a very biased reason for spouting this nonsense as he was trying to recommend an uncomplicated diet of just muscle-meat to Westerners,  so conveniently ignored the fact that the Eskimos not only ate substantial amounts of raw animal food, but lots of organs as well. Also, hypocritically, when he did his own Bellevue Experiment, he not only ate some raw animal food, but also some organs as well, such as raw marrow.

[TylerDurden]

Re the Bear:-

Actually, the raw, zero-carbers are pretty leery of the Bear, for the most part. Plenty of them eat grassfed meats despite the Bear claiming that that's not necessary, plenty eat the organs etc.

[livingthelife]

First of all, the amounts of insects available in the wild is very, very low. To get insects in appreciable quantities to form more than 0.1% of one's diet, one would have to be near a termite-mound or the equivalent, not a common feature in most parts of the world. Strictly speaking, the amount of effort needed to capture insects in appreciable quantities for a whole tribe is far greater than the amount of effort needed to bring down 1 very large fat-heavy mammoth or other land-mammal. I'd agree that hunter-gatherers had insects/grubs as an occasional snack, but they could never form a significant part of the diet.

(Maybe that's why food is called "grub")

"Black bears accumulate large fat reserves during the fall, primarily from fruits, nuts, and acorns."
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Ursus_americanus.html

I think anything at all was eaten, in whatever quantities available and could be safely assimilated.

[TylerDurden]

First of all, the above insects were almost certainly farmed. Pre-agriculture, I'll admit that one could eat raw meats infested with maggots(assuming, that is, that they liked such fare, I certainly don't) but that's about it.

Acorns aren't too digestible by humans. I believe they were a last-resort "starvation-food" in mediaeval times, but not a staple, otherwise.

One point about eating plants is that if you get most of your calories from plant-food then that requires that you need to  spend most of your time eating whereas carnivores are able to take time off, due to the high level of energy from animal foods.

[Sully]

Do brains have carbs? Like a significant amount?

I searched up nutritional info for cooked brains, It didn't list any amount of carbs.

[Guittarman03]

Sorry, I could have been wrong on the brains issue.  I thought I read on a post somewhere talking about brains containing carbs.  I think the brain stores small amounts of glycogen (it has to maintain a very particular blood sugar balance).  Either way, I do know that liver and muscles store glycogen.   

[Carnál]

Do brains have carbs? Like a significant amount?

I searched up nutritional info for cooked brains, It didn't list any amount of carbs.

    I looked through beef, lamb, calf and pork.  Only raw beef listed any carbs, but only 3%:

    nutridiary

[JaX]

Just found out The Bear is a former LSD chemist, Owsley Stanley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owsley_Stanley#Diet_and_health. Don't know if that raises his credibility or not.

[Nicola]

I have gone through many of his posts and he is outright wrong on numerous issues. But hey, he's right 50% of the time, so that makes it good enough, right?

Has anyone actually met up with the bear? Can you actually meet him in person, like you can meet AV at seminars,etc? Is The Bear purely an internet phenomenon?

If he's purely internet based then you really have to watch out. How can you base your diet on an unknown person's posts on the internet?

You say "he is outright wrong on numerous issues". So you are the juge and you are "the internet guy" who knows what's right?

AV may play up in some seminars (money!) but he has changed his mind X times and his ideas are not what I would like to put down my gut. The Bear does a better job in that respect!

[TylerDurden]

Whatever AV's credibility may be, it's way higher than The Bear's - at least AV doesn't smoke. I gather that the Bear got his throat cancer from smoking(or his cooked-diet?)

[boxcarguy07]

Just found out The Bear is a former LSD chemist, Owsley Stanley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owsley_Stanley#Diet_and_health. Don't know if that raises his credibility or not.

Hold on... the Bear is Owsley Stanley?? 


AHHHHHH no way that blows my mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[avalon]

Lex wrote:

I hate to disappoint you but the Garden of Eden - chock full of luscious fruits just for the picking - doesn't exist in most of nature.

We, ehh, left the Garden of Eden and you know like, no one took good care of it and well, I've heard it's all over grown and stuff, now... like... you wouldn't even recognize it yo 

On that note man, we are the mutt of the animal world. We were undoubtedly scavengers and on the go go looking for food yo. Back then we were on foot with a lot of ground to cover. It makes sense that we would have tried to eat almost everything we found. Who wouldn't?

Lex also wrote:

Interesting that what is so clear to you is not nearly so clear to me.  Today dogs and cats are routinely fed a diet of mostly carbs and yet few would argue that this is their natural food.  Based on your scenario we should expect that a cat would feast on berries and wild grapes to get energy while hunting rodents and other small game.

That is interesting because Guittarman03's clarity rings somewhat true for me too. My Cat, is a spinach addict. I can't even tell you how it started, really. But the minute I've got Spinach out of the fridge, he's there begging for it. And aren't Dogs more omni than Cats anyway?

If The Bear hadn't worked for The Grateful Dead and been an 'underground' LSD chemist, would anyone have a clue who he is? I've read him and enjoyed many of his thoughts on diet, but his attitude is rude to nasty and that is a big turn off to me.  But hey, I'm still open. But even over at ANC all the 'Zero Carbers' I knew didn't feel right until adding a little to a little more carbs back in. But I'm open. I am. Open... 

Best wishes,
Avalon 

[Raw Kyle]

Can you guys give me a quick course on "The Bear?" He's some internet paleo guru correct? How long has he been that, and what other things can I learn about him? I just want to be able to keep up in the arguments 

[JaX]

Can you guys give me a quick course on "The Bear?" He's some internet paleo guru correct? How long has he been that, and what other things can I learn about him? I just want to be able to keep up in the arguments 

Dude did you see my previous post? The Bear's is actually Owsley Stanley who was the first LSD chemist to produce a huge amount of LSD. There is an article on wikipedia, you can read more about him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owsley_Stanley

He had throat cancer, which he attributed to passive smoking at concerts, and he states that he got over his cancer and prevent it from spreading because his zero carb diet starved off the tumor cells (no glucose). I think he was on the zero carb diet both before and after his throat cancer.

Today he lives in Australia and makes art which can be found on thebear.org .

He also has an essay about diet/health on his website: http://www.thebear.org/essays1.html

His popularity in the low carb community comes from a long forum discussion, which can be found here:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=287013&highlight=bear+carniverous

[JaX]

You say "he is outright wrong on numerous issues". So you are the juge and you are "the internet guy" who knows what's right?

AV may play up in some seminars (money!) but he has changed his mind X times and his ideas are not what I would like to put down my gut. The Bear does a better job in that respect!

I'm not saying I know what's right at all. I far from know what is right. But my personal philosophy is that what is right for one person, is completely wrong for another, and everyone should find out what their own body needs. If you have found out what works for you, your body, then great, stick to it and be happy you don't have to go through more trial and error.

The Bear may be right on many issues, and I do agree with him on the fact that probably a lot of diseases in societies today are attributed to increased carb consumption. But I disagree with him on other issues, such as, that eating store bought meat in a supermarket is the same as the inuit who lived zero carb with SEAFOOD (much more omega 3 in seafood than any grassfed animal available today I assume?)

Some other weird stuff:
According to an article on http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/12/MNGK0QV7HS1.DTL, The Bear blames some broccoli that he ate in his childhood for his heart attack?

His all-meat diet is a well-known example. When he was younger, Bear read about the Eskimos eating only fish and meat and became convinced that humans are meant to be exclusively carnivorous. The members of the Grateful Dead remember living with Bear for several months in 1966 in Los Angeles, where the refrigerator contained only bottles of milk and a slab of steak, meat they fried and ate straight out of the pan. His heart attack several years ago had nothing to do with his strict regimen, according to Bear, but more likely the result of some poisonous broccoli his mother made him eat as a youth.

Granted, that might have been The Bear joking, a user even commented on that article that:

A couple corrections: He has NEVER had a heart attack, though he did have bypass surgery a few years ago ---to correct blockages which he blames on the high carb diet he ate from childhood until his early 20s.

But still, how can he be certain that a high carb diet many years ago caused him the problems?

My point is there are places where The Bear is inconsistent. He obviously is intelligent but I don't think he is the best role model when it comes to diet/health.