That’s a very difficult task that probably no one can perform reliably. If the animal has been really badly fed, then an abnormal flavor can be perceived in its meat by a thoroughly experienced person. Personally, I’m unable to tell. And if the animal has received medication, vaccinations or occasional heated or cooked supplements, even the best expert can’t perceive it. The only indication will be that some people will be more or less sick after consuming a sufficient amount.
I can with some degree of certainty perceive the quality of the animal by taste. Having lived on a meat based diet that is very low in substances which would interfere with ones sense of taste, I have been able to hone my instincts. I have noticed that the first taste of blood and the liver are the best indication of the overall goodness of an animal, and to a lesser extent the kidneys.
Some animals will have bitter blood with an unpleasant aftertaste, and unsavory flavored liver. This will vary by degrees and must depend on a multitude of factors, but none the less I can tell, and if I do eat a poor tasting animal out of the necessity then I quickly loose my appetite and begin to feel bad. If the animal is pleasant in flavor I will notice a feeling of increased hunger and an overall sense of well being during the first few days after making the kill.
This good feeling upon finding a prime animal, drives me to seek out fresh blood and organs from the best sources available. Sometimes I get a poor animal, and if it is bad enough I have thrown out entire carcasses in the past. Some animals have lesions on their organs while others have bad looking kidneys, or mis-colored lymph nodes. There are a number of tale tale signs... visual, taste, texture which are good indicators of the animals well being.
The main criticism I have of GBC is the fact that he seems dogmatic in the way he advocates how one can attune their instincts to lead them to their optimal diet, then he goes on to claim that certain foods should be limited and that the instincto philosophy of eating however much you want of whatever ,natural whole foods taste good, does not apply to Meat.
Because an animal has a lot of fat, does it mean that it never received any processed food or medication? I doubt very much.
Perhaps for sheep, but I don’t think it’s wise to eat mainly mutton regularly during several years. Better go for a variety of mostly wild animals, seafood, eggs, poultry, etc.
Unfortunately, It is up to the individual to discover for themselves the history of the animals they consume, just as they should find out what the farmer was putting into the soil that the produce was grown on. There is no other way for many people to guarantee premium quality.
It may not be wise to limit yourselves to one source of food entirely. I will still eat game meats like deer when available, the occasional sea food, and about 4 eggs a day. Also I have been expanding my variety of plant foods and will eat a large salad of mixed greens with avocado, tomato, green onions and some dried herb seasoning regularly.
Yes, I agree: it is often beneficial, specially during a certain period. But on the long run, it is highly recommended to have the broadest variety of meats, as much as possible from wild animals, and to alternate with non mammal meats and other sources of animal foods.
This is debatable, there have been traditional herds peoples who have done fine on just one variety of meat, and there is no evidence that one has to eat non mammal meats. Though I think there may be some value in eating a variety of animals, I think quality trumps variety in this department. Its better to have a staple source of high quality meat than to eat a variety of animals from questionable sources.
Now if I was a wealthy man, I would be ordering pasture raised ostriches, kangaroo meat, deep sea fish, alligator, and any other creature under the sun, but because of my economic situation combine with the difficulty of locating quality animals, I have decided that its much safer to continue useing Mutton as my staple food.
Oh, no, I don’t see this thread initiated by Hanna as a personal attack against meat based paleo diet. I felt it was rather intended as a personal attack against GCB and against me. I agree there’s no proof, and as I wrote already, about all old timers instinctos including myself didn’t believe GCB’s explanations. But after reconsidering the issue with the infos available, including the ones posted by PaleoPhil, it seems factual that regular large consumption of red meat during long periods could be dangerous in the long term.
There are many of us who like to attack GCBs dogmatic stance against heavy meat consumption, and again I must point out that in his hypothesis he doesn't not take into consideration people like A.V, the Inuit, and many other groups of people who are highly carnivorous and are able to maintain good health into old age. His recommendations do not apply to Low carb, high-meat eating mutants, who get 70 percent of their calories from fat.
Though I will agree that for people eating large amounts of carbs from fruits and starchy vegetables, while eating a small amount of animal fat, may not do very well if they eat large amounts of lean muscle meat.
There are just so many other factors involved for one to make blanket statements about how eating meat regularly is harmful to health
But as GCB emphasized: “A substitute may well have harmful long-term effects, particularly at immune level, not only at the banal level of balance between the contributions of organs and muscle.”
This too must be considered in context, and there are just too many other factors that are involved in maintaining a healthy balance to make these blanket statements.
