Re: What is a good ratio of animal to non-animal products?

[Guest guest]

I think it's highly individualized. There is no perfect ratio that's

healthy for everyone. Even with the quality of the foods being

equal (grassfed, free-range, organic, raw dairy, soaked &

fermented, lacto-fermented, etc., etc.), not every person will do

best on the same proportions of plant to animal foods or

different kinds of animal foods (i.e. some people simply can't

tolerate dairy, even if it's raw and fermented).

Again, I'd recommend that people read The Metabolic Typing

Diet if they're looking for some further direction on

*individualized* ratios of macronutrients. It makes far more

sense to me than the method based on blood type. I think it's

given me an additional and valuable perspective on what to eat

to balance my metabolism, in addition to the revelation about

food quality and preparation from Nourishing Traditions.

Aubin

[Guest guest]

> Can anyone suggest a

> good balance between these types of foods? It

> probably depends on age-range and activity levels

> (generally people are more active when young and they

> are still actively growing).

Craig,

I'd agree with what Aubin said about indivual needs. I'd also add

that I don't really think that breaking the diet down into animal/non-

animal is a very useful way to look at things. If you consume a fair

amount of organ meats, you can get by quite healthfully with fairly

low total amounts of animal foods. If however, your only animal

foods are things like muscle meats, milk, and eggs you'll require a

much larger amount (as a percent of calories) in order to meet your

nutritional needs. There's far too much variation in the nutritional

profile of foods within the animal and non-animal categories to

generalize about how much of each to consume.

Let me know if you'd like more clarification and detail about this.

[Guest guest]

At 07:39 AM 5/23/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>It seems that a diet heavily weighted toward animal

>products is probably not optimal for most people, nor

>is a strictly vetitarian diet. Certainly more protien

>is needed for those who are very active (easiest

>through more animal products). Can anyone suggest a

>good balance between these types of foods? It

>probably depends on age-range and activity levels

>(generally people are more active when young and they

>are still actively growing).

The rationale, esp. in this group, has a lot to do with the work Weston

Price did on studying " wild " native cultures and the health of those

people. There is also some interesting work done in studying pre-farmer

humans (who were healthier before they started farming). I think a lot of

the issue with " modern meats " has to do with factory farming, not the meat

itself -- and the mainstream is beginning to recognize this too. The fat in

a grain-fed beef is FAR different from that in grass-fed.

As for " heavily weighted " , it likely varies. I think a serving of meat or

other animal protein with each meal is really a good thing. For me, a diet

loaded with grains is really a BAD thing. Vegies seem to be pretty good for

everyone.

But in the long run you have to track what works for you. Keeping a food

diary and just paying attention works well!

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...