Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 I'm not sure I understand your question. However from the data in our files, which I hope you've read, variety in a wide range of fruits and veggies is seems surely the route if you want to maximize your years. If you mean by " hunter-gatherer " that you can have your fatty meat and eat it too, IMHO you are fooling yourself. And if you mean totally eliminate whole grains, that's pretty drastic. We've gone over the " hunter'gatherer " stuff many times in the past on this board and have come to the conclusion that it's not the ultimate diet. If anyone however can post respected (and that is the crux of the matter) studies showing that meat and other so-called " hunter gatherer " foods are the way to go, by all means do so. Not pseudo-science, but real science. on 11/4/2004 1:02 PM, guy_bliss2001 at guy_bliss2001@... wrote: > Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating > hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? > Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little > saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of anything)? > > Put another way, are we wasting time focusing on which diet works the > best when the true issue is whether we're overeating or not? I'm > looking for perspectives that I'd bet my life on... literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 I am of the opinion that in general energy balance (assuming adequate nutrition) trumps macronutrient ratios. In the average this should allow modest consumption of saturated fats, however we live or die as individuals, with specific considerations. Some individuals have genetic predispositions for high cholesterol, heart disease, and/or associated mechanisms. It might be wise for you to experiment with your diet and then test the results of your assumptions. While assumptions are useful as a starting point, manage the actual results. Gambling on personal health is never a good bet. JR -----Original Message----- From: guy_bliss2001 [mailto:guy_bliss2001@...] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 12:03 PM Subject: [ ] You bet your life... I'm returning to caloric restriction after getting a bad cholesterol test recently. I gave up CR some years back due to complaints about physical weakness. Many discussions have not changed since then, such as which popular diets merit the most attention. My question for this learned group is: Do you know of any data to support the notion that calorically restricted individuals who are adequately nourished (and I'm ruling out really stupid food choices, such as trans fats here), and eating a variety of ancient foods, including animals and vegetables, will be affected by various popular diets. Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of anything)? Put another way, are we wasting time focusing on which diet works the best when the true issue is whether we're overeating or not? I'm looking for perspectives that I'd bet my life on... literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Francesca Skelton wrote: Re: [ ] You bet your life... I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean by "hunter-gatherer" that you can have your fatty meat and eat it too, IMHO you are fooling yourself. And if you mean totally eliminate whole grains, that's pretty drastic. grass fed beef or any game is not that high in fat. I see no problem with grains, but grains as the base of a diet, now that is I think problematic. Positive Dennis Since I seem mostly recovered from my surgery I am ready to start up my weight loss again. I hope We've gone over the "hunter'gatherer" stuff many times in the past on this board and have come to the conclusion that it's not the ultimate diet. If anyone however can post respected (and that is the crux of the matter) studies showing that meat and other so-called "hunter gatherer" foods are the way to go, by all means do so. Not pseudo-science, but real science. on 11/4/2004 1:02 PM, guy_bliss2001 at guy_bliss2001@... wrote: > Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating > hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? > Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little > saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of anything)? > > Put another way, are we wasting time focusing on which diet works the > best when the true issue is whether we're overeating or not? I'm > looking for perspectives that I'd bet my life on... literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 In a message dated 11/4/04 6:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, perspect1111@... writes: Year round the women would find roots not in climes, though, where the ground freezes. You couldn't dig up anything even with a steel/iron pick. So, does this tell us that Europeans were big meat eaters?? Or was it stored nuts, etc? -- Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Thanks for your response, Francesca. I'm grateful to pick the brains of people who have thought about some of my questions in greater depth than I have. To build on my question: I recall Dr. Walford writing that undernutrition was the relevant variable determining the many benefits of cron. As long as one achieved the desired below-setpoint weight without malnutrition, one still got the results. Are any of you Cronners 10% (or more) under setpoint and still manifesting symptoms of cardiovascular disease (poor lipid profile, etc)? So far the debate I've read over optimal diet cites studies dealing with non-Cron populations. Assuming that saturated fats (even in small amounts) have no interaction with undernutrition, do people on this list have the symptoms (or mortality, if you know of anyone) to document the failure of their approach (even anecdotally)? I'm reluctant to start living on staples such as soybeans and collards (like I used to) if this type of recommendation is interpolated from nonCron populations only. ( I don't mind the sourdough bread, however ). > > > Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating > > hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? > > Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little > > saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of anything)? > > > > Put another way, are we wasting time focusing on which diet works the > > best when the true issue is whether we're overeating or not? I'm > > looking for perspectives that I'd bet my life on... literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Not sure where you came to that conclusion. Dr Walford's entire book is based on not only adequate nutrition but superior nutrition. He even includes a cookbook at the end based on the healthiest foods! He coins the acronym " CRON " at the very start of his book and does not waver. The only caveat is that if one " occasionally " strays, that would not affect the total outcome. on 11/4/2004 2:54 PM, guy_bliss2001 at guy_bliss2001@... wrote: > > Thanks for your response, Francesca. I'm grateful to pick the brains > of people who have thought about some of my questions in greater depth > than I have. > > To build on my question: I recall Dr. Walford writing that > undernutrition was the relevant variable determining the many benefits > of cron. As long as one achieved the desired below-setpoint weight > without malnutrition, one still got the results. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 In a message dated 11/4/04 2:14:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, positivedennis@... writes: grass fed beef or any game is not that high in fat. and, in fact, most (not all) wild mammals are very low in fat. USDA shows about 2% for deer meat steaks. Anybody who has actually eaten wild venison can vouch that it is indeed very low. Same for squirrels and wabbits. -- Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 In a message dated 11/4/04 8:21:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, jnovick@... writes: That is 2% by weight, but % fat is usually discussed as a percent of calories, not weight. I posed it that way so as to compare with the way we buy meat in a supermarket. Truly wild game, that is grass feed and free range averages about 12-20% fat, which is much lower than commercial beef. It is also lower in Saturated fat, and often higher in omega 3 content. Some wild gane, though lower in fat, can be higher in cholesterol. Bison, Elk and Moose are probably the lowest in percentage of total fat. You're claiming they are lower than rabbits or squirrels? The ones you cite carry back fat. OTOH, you can apparently die from starvation even if you have all the rabbits you can eat, because they are so lean. -- Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 I'm evidently not clear here. The data still support CRAN, caloric restriction with adequate nutrition, far better than CRON. The overwhelming evidence for the benefits of caloric restriction reflect animal research where adequacy was the standard, not " optimal " nutrition which, I expect, people will still be arguing over far beyond our time. To the best of my knowledge CRON reflects the wish to play it safer, but has nowhere near the support that CRAN does. In other words, we may be overdoing it, assuming that anyone can definitively describe " optimal " anyway. I'm hoping someone will come forth and describe and discuss any lipid problems they had after achieving a criterion level of CR, if there is such a person. My guess is that no one fits this description. If people are acheiving dramatic lipid changes on weight loss alone I won't worry about the lean chicken I'm eating every day along with my veggies. It's a question of enjoying the longer life I'll lead, keeping a sense of humor and lightness, and avoiding a born-again mentality. If some of you did indeed have a lipid problem after achieving criterion levels, I may choose to learn from your experience and go to greater extremes, such as a vegan diet. I trust that the evidence-driven aspect of this group will help me separate sense from nonsense. > > > > > Thanks for your response, Francesca. I'm grateful to pick the brains > > of people who have thought about some of my questions in greater depth > > than I have. > > > > To build on my question: I recall Dr. Walford writing that > > undernutrition was the relevant variable determining the many benefits > > of cron. As long as one achieved the desired below-setpoint weight > > without malnutrition, one still got the results. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 > > > I'm not sure I understand your question. > > If you mean by " hunter-gatherer " that you can have your fatty meat and > > eat it too, IMHO you are fooling yourself. And if you mean totally > > eliminate whole grains, that's pretty drastic. > > grass fed beef or any game is not that high in fat. I see no problem > with grains, but grains as the base of a diet, now that is I think > problematic. > > Positive Dennis Hi All, Think: http://infoaging.org/b-cal-7-increase.html = Caloric restriction pyramid. Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Hi Guy: It seems to me that the concensus around here is: 1) OVERWHELMINGLY the most important thing is to restrict calories with adequate nutrition ......... and we think we know this for certain. (!) 2) All other issues are of subsidiary significance .......... and in pretty much all cases we are not confident any of them will provide any benefits above and beyond those of CRON. For example: a) How much fat do we really need and precisely what type from which source? (We know less saturated fat is desirable, but beyond that ..........?) What kind and amount of protein is best? ........... above which it is simply excessive calories. c) Do we really need any carbohydrates when energy can be obtained from fat and protein? d) Do we measurably benefit from getting huge quantities of the essential micronutrients, by eating only the hugely nutrient-dense foods? Or do diminishing returns set in at moderate levels of micronutrient intake? We know some are toxic in excessive quantities. e) Is there benefit from some particular schedule of meal spacing? ('fasting'). f) We know exercise is desirable, but how much of it, and what type, is best given that excessive amounts mean increased caloric intake. g) Are dangerous foods such as saturated fats or oxalic acid truly harmful if eaten only in small quantities? etc. etc. etc. Nutrition, while it has advanced a long way in the past 100 years, still is a very imprecise science. And doubtless what is best will vary from individual to individual. Worse, the things we think we do know about nutrition have been learned from experiments performed on ad libbers. Does that mean for sure that they will also benefit those on CRON? For just one example: If CRON cleans out arteries (it seems to, WUSTL) then do we need to be concerned about the same things ad libbers need to be concerned about regarding CVD? BUT .......... the WUSTL study of 17 people who have been on CRON for at least three years shows they had quite extraordinary health markers ................. despite the fact that each of the subjects had independently chosen their own particular way to do CRON. Markers like BP averaging 99/61. Or total cholesterol of 157. Or C-rp and insulin ~80% less than the age-matched controls ................. . For these reasons we are confident CRON helps in a major way, no matter what variation of it is pursued. As time goes by we will learn more about the 'little details' that may, or may not, benefit our health in small ways above and beyond caloric restriction. In the middle of next year for example a study will be coming out that looks at the effects of eating one meal a day in the early evening, compared with three meals a day. Hopefully that will start to provide some serious evidence about the benefits, or otherwise, of 'fasting'. But there seems to be general agreement, and very little doubt, around here about the benefits of consuming fewer, but very healthy, calories. So we each have to place our bets as to what we think may eventually be proven to be the best way to make up that restricted amount of calories. There are quite diverse views here on each of these little details. Rodney. > > I'm returning to caloric restriction after getting a bad cholesterol > test recently. I gave up CR some years back due to complaints about > physical weakness. > > Many discussions have not changed since then, such as which popular > diets merit the most attention. My question for this learned group is: > Do you know of any data to support the notion that calorically > restricted individuals who are adequately nourished (and I'm ruling > out really stupid food choices, such as trans fats here), and eating a > variety of ancient foods, including animals and vegetables, will be > affected by various popular diets. > > Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating > hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? > Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little > saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of anything)? > > Put another way, are we wasting time focusing on which diet works the > best when the true issue is whether we're overeating or not? I'm > looking for perspectives that I'd bet my life on... literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Hi Guy: Regarding lipid problems specifically. Read the WUSTL study, fairly extensively discussed here when it was published some months ago, and draw your own conclusions. Not only were lipid values AMAZING in the CRON subjects, but carotid IMT measurements strongly suggested the arteries were clean also (which is probably more important than lipid values?). Rodney. > I'm evidently not clear here. > > I'm hoping someone will come forth and describe and discuss any lipid problems they had > after achieving a criterion level of CR, if there is such a person. My guess is that no one fits > this description. If people are acheiving dramatic lipid changes on weight loss alone I > won't worry about the lean chicken I'm eating every day along with my veggies. It's a > question of enjoying the longer life I'll lead, keeping a sense of humor and lightness, and > avoiding a born-again mentality. > > If some of you did indeed have a lipid problem after achieving criterion levels, I may > choose to learn from your experience and go to greater extremes, such as a vegan diet. I > trust that the evidence-driven aspect of this group will help me separate sense from > nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Hi Guy: I am no expert on hunter gatherer communities but my impression is (the females here will enjoy this!) that the hunter-gatherers were much more gatherers than hunters. The women would get up early and cook something for their males to eat before they left for their arduous day out on the savannah, then the women would go out and 'gather' whatever they could find - most of it seasonal - to eat for dinner and the following day. Year round the women would find roots; in the summer, growing plants (green vegetables); in the fall, fruits. The males meanwhile would trapse around aimlessly, clad in their animal skins and armed with a bow and a couple of arrows, hoping to happen upon a solitary elephant sunbathing by the pool. Of course they didn't often find what they were looking for. By definition they couldn't, because if they caught them very often whatever it was they caught would soon become extinct, or at least absent from their local neighborhood. So my suspicion is that the males almost always came home empty- handed. So how often would they eat meat? Not often and not much. How often did they eat vegetables (roots)? Every day probably, as much as their wife could dig up. How often green vegetables? Only in the summer, and then probably lots of them. How often fruit? Mostly in the fall, and tons of it, unripe, before their neighbours picked it first. It is far from clear to me that eating like this on a seasonal basis represents the epitome of good human nutrition. It was simply what enabled them to survive long enough to pass on their genes and feed their kids until they were self-sufficient. So does it have much relevance for us? Rodney. > Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating > hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? > Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little > saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of > anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Similar to my thoughts, FWIW. It is thought they ate carrion as well. But also the paleo theory says we evolved to what we are today in the paleo period. But they never talk about what we evolved FROM. Likely vegetarians - fruits, nuts, leaves. I suspect they may have gathered eggs as well. They may have done a lot of walking following herds, but they didn't build high rise apartments, drive cars. Ergo, there are many differences (like totally) in our lifestyle that may not be overcome by a paleo diet if we knew exactly what it was and could buy it or grow it. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 5:51 PM Subject: [ ] Re: You bet your life... Hi Guy:I am no expert on hunter gatherer communities but my impression is (the females here will enjoy this!) that the hunter-gatherers were much more gatherers than hunters. The women would get up early and cook something for their males to eat before they left for their arduous day out on the savannah, then the women would go out and 'gather' whatever they could find - most of it seasonal - to eat for dinner and the following day. Year round the women would find roots; in the summer, growing plants (green vegetables); in the fall, fruits.The males meanwhile would trapse around aimlessly, clad in their animal skins and armed with a bow and a couple of arrows, hoping to happen upon a solitary elephant sunbathing by the pool. Of course they didn't often find what they were looking for. By definition they couldn't, because if they caught them very often whatever it was they caught would soon become extinct, or at least absent from their local neighborhood. So my suspicion is that the males almost always came home empty-handed. So how often would they eat meat? Not often and not much. How often did they eat vegetables (roots)? Every day probably, as much as their wife could dig up. How often green vegetables? Only in the summer, and then probably lots of them. How often fruit? Mostly in the fall, and tons of it, unripe, before their neighbours picked it first.It is far from clear to me that eating like this on a seasonal basis represents the epitome of good human nutrition. It was simply what enabled them to survive long enough to pass on their genes and feed their kids until they were self-sufficient. So does it have much relevance for us?Rodney.> Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating> hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table?> Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little> saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of > anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 That's very helpful, Rodney. Can you give me the citation on the WUSTL study? (my alma mater). Tim > > > > I'm returning to caloric restriction after getting a bad cholesterol > > test recently. I gave up CR some years back due to complaints about > > physical weakness. > > > > Many discussions have not changed since then, such as which popular > > diets merit the most attention. My question for this learned group > is: > > Do you know of any data to support the notion that calorically > > restricted individuals who are adequately nourished (and I'm ruling > > out really stupid food choices, such as trans fats here), and > eating a > > variety of ancient foods, including animals and vegetables, will be > > affected by various popular diets. > > > > Let me make this dramatic: Can one be calorically-restricted, eating > > hunter-gatherer foods, and still commit suicide at the dinner table? > > Or would caloric restriction override the presence of a little > > saturated fat, etc (after all, I won't be eating that much of > anything)? > > > > Put another way, are we wasting time focusing on which diet works > the > > best when the true issue is whether we're overeating or not? I'm > > looking for perspectives that I'd bet my life on... literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Odds are hunter gatherers were nomadic. We have people like those today following reindeer herds, eg. Obviously if they didn't eat something they didn't last, but in ice ages the survivors must have moved. One TV article said they spread across the world only to be wiped out mostly, except in the warm regions (Australia) from which they respread across the earth when it warmed. In that area they adapted to a vegetarian diet. Could have been as few as 1000 families that survived a giant volcanic eruption in Sumatra. I do have a question about that hypothesis/theory, but that is at least one. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: bpinfo@... Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: You bet your life... In a message dated 11/4/04 6:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, perspect1111@... writes: Year round the women would find rootsnot in climes, though, where the ground freezes. You couldn't dig up anything even with a steel/iron pick.So, does this tell us that Europeans were big meat eaters?? Or was it stored nuts, etc?-- Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi Ken: Good point. And animals are easier to track when they are leaving tracks in snow. This may also be a factor in the differences in disease risk between caucasians and negroes ......... and orientals, etc.. Rodney. > In a message dated 11/4/04 6:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, > perspect1111@y... writes: > > > Year round the women would find > > roots > > not in climes, though, where the ground freezes. You couldn't dig up anything > even with a steel/iron pick. > > So, does this tell us that Europeans were big meat eaters?? Or was it stored > nuts, etc? > > -- > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi JW: Yes. I believe the volcano was 'Toba', and I believe the eruption occurred ~70,000 years ago. I had heard that the evidence is that the world human population was reduced after that eruption to at most 1000 *individuals*. How do we know that? I know someone who has just completed his PhD in mathematics and his thesis topic was how historical population numbers for a species can be determined from the current distribution of genes within the population. But I am not certain this was how the 1000 number above was determined. I also heard that it has been determined that 95% of the population of Europe is descended from just seven women. I assume that the seven are from the group that survived Toba. But much of this information is very vague I am afraid. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > Odds are hunter gatherers were nomadic. We have people like those today following reindeer herds, eg. Obviously if they didn't eat something they didn't last, but in ice ages the survivors must have moved. One TV article said they spread across the world only to be wiped out mostly, except in the warm regions (Australia) from which they respread across the earth when it warmed. In that area they adapted to a vegetarian diet. > > Could have been as few as 1000 families that survived a giant volcanic eruption in Sumatra. I do have a question about that hypothesis/theory, but that is at least one. > > Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: bpinfo@a... > > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:42 PM > Subject: Re: [ ] Re: You bet your life... > > > In a message dated 11/4/04 6:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, perspect1111@y... writes: > > > Year round the women would find > roots > > > not in climes, though, where the ground freezes. You couldn't dig up anything even with a steel/iron pick. > > So, does this tell us that Europeans were big meat eaters?? Or was it stored nuts, etc? > > -- > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 >>>and, in fact, most (not all) wild mammals are very low in fat. USDA shows about 2% for deer meat steaks. Anybody who has actually eaten wild venison can vouch that it is indeed very low. Same for squirrels and wabbits. That is 2% by weight, but % fat is usually discussed as a percent of calories, not weight. Truly wild game, that is grass feed and free range averages about 12-20% fat, which is much lower than commercial beef. It is also lower in Saturated fat, and often higher in omega 3 content. Some wild gane, though lower in fat, can be higher in cholesterol. Bison, Elk and Moose are probably the lowest in percentage of total fat. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi Alls Oh? USDA database: Deer venison 0 %Carbs 41 %Fats 59 %Protein 2.2/5 stars In Simple Terms The Good This food is low in Sodium. It is also a good source of Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Iron, Phosphorus and Zinc, and a very good source of Protein and Thiamin. The Bad This food is high in Saturated Fat and Cholesterol. --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...> wrote: > >>>and, in fact, most (not all) wild mammals are very low in fat. USDA shows about 2% for deer meat steaks. Anybody who has actually eaten wild venison can vouch that it is indeed very low. Same for squirrels and wabbits. > > That is 2% by weight, but % fat is usually discussed as a percent of calories, not weight. Truly wild game, that is grass feed and free range averages about 12-20% fat, which is much lower than commercial beef. It is also lower in Saturated fat, and often higher in omega 3 content. Some wild gane, though lower in fat, can be higher in cholesterol. > > Bison, Elk and Moose are probably the lowest in percentage of total fat. > > Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 >>>Oh? USDA database: Deer venison 0 %Carbs 41 %Fats 59 %Protein 2.2/5 stars From the current USDA Database SDR 17 Game meat, deer, cooked, roasted USDA NDB No: 17165 Value per 100 grams of edible portion Water g 65.23 Energy kcal 158 Total lipid (fat) g 3.19 3.19 x 9 = 28.71 / 158 = 18% Calories From Fat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 >>That is 2% by weight, but % fat is usually discussed as a percent of calories, not weight. >I posed it that way so as to compare with the way we buy meat in a supermarket. That is just the way meat is " advertised " and " marketed " as it is makes the meat sound better than it really is. It is also confusing as any given percentage of fat by weight, does not equal out to any given percentage of fat by calories. Water weight can influence the percentage of fat by weight without influencing the percentage of fat by calories. So, its easy to keep the percent fat by weight low, while the percent fat by calories can rise dramatically. So many foods can be very high in calories from fat, yet advertised or marketed as low in fat, by weight. Its a trick I learned well, while working many years in the meat manufacturing/processing industry. >>>>Truly wild game, that is grass feed and free range averages about 12-20% fat, which is much lower than commercial beef. It is also lower in Saturated fat, and often higher in omega 3 content. Some wild gane, though lower in fat, can be higher in cholesterol. Bison, Elk and Moose are probably the lowest in percentage of total fat. >>Your cllaiming they are lower than rabbits or squirrels? The ones you cite carry back fat. OTOH, you can apparently die from starvation even if you have all the rabbits you can eat, because they are so lean. Yes, according to the current USDA Database SR 17, Moose Elk and Bison are the lowest fat wild game with moose being the lowest, tha elk, than bison. Rabbit is 3x the Moose and Squirrel is 6x the Moose. (all numbers below) Regards Jeff Game meat, moose, cooked, roasted USDA NDB No: 17173 Value per 100 grams ofedible portion Water g 67.83 Energy kcal 134 Total lipid (fat) g 0.97 ..97 x 9 =8.73 / 134 = 6.5 % calories from fat Game meat, elk, cooked, roasted NDB No: 17167 Value per 100 grams ofedible portion Water g 66.28 Energy kcal 146 Total lipid (fat) g 1.90 1.9 x 9 = 17.1 / 146 = 11.7% Calories From fat Game meat, bison, separable lean only, cooked, roasted NDB No: 17157 Value per 100 grams of edible portion Water g 66.54 0 0 Energy kcal 143 0 0 Total lipid (fat) g 2.42 2.42 x 9 21.78 / 143 = 15.2% calories from fat Game meat, rabbit, wild, cooked, stewed NDB No: 17181 Value per 100 grams of edible portion Water g 61.37 Energy kcal 173 Total lipid (fat) g 3.51 3.51 x 9 = 31.59 / 173 = 18.26% calories from fat Game meat, squirrel, cooked, roasted NDB No: 17184 Value per 100 grams ofedible portion Water g 62.07 0 0 Energy kcal 173 0 0 Total lipid (fat) g 4.69 4.69 x 9 = 42.21 / 173 = 24.3% Calories From Fat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 >>OTOH, you can apparently die from starvation even if you have all the rabbits you can eat, because they are so lean. All of these are not only about the same in energy density, (though elk, moose and bison are slightly lower than rabbit and squirrel) they are all also fairly low in energy density, about 600 cal/lb, so they would all be as equally difficult to overeat on. At the activity levels they probably maintained, that would be 4-5 (to 6) lbs to probably break even and not lose weight. In addition, I left out the cholesterol numbers, so just to add those in...(bison, elk, moose are about 1/3 less than rabbit annd squirrel) see updated numbers below. Its also important to keep these numbers in mind when people talk about applying hunter/gather diets (or gatherer/hunter diets as they probably were more like) and paleolithic nutrition in todays world. The animal meat that they ate back than was probably much closer to these lower numbers than what is available on the market today, expecially commercially. I am always amused when people overindulge in commercially grown poultry, beef and other meats, justifying it by saying they are doing like their hunter/gather ancestors did. Silly rabbits!! Jeff Game meat, moose, cooked, roasted USDA NDB No: 17173 Value per 100 grams ofedible portion Water g 67.83 Energy kcal 134 Total lipid (fat) g 0.97 Cholesterol mg 78 ..97 x 9 =8.73 / 134 = 6.5 % calories from fat Game meat, elk, cooked, roasted NDB No: 17167 Value per 100 grams ofedible portion Water g 66.28 Energy kcal 146 Total lipid (fat) g 1.90 Cholesterol mg 73 1.9 x 9 = 17.1 / 146 = 11.7% Calories From fat Game meat, bison, separable lean only, cooked, roasted NDB No: 17157 Value per 100 grams of edible portion Water g 66.54 0 0 Energy kcal 143 0 0 Total lipid (fat) g 2.42 Cholesterol mg 82 2.42 x 9 21.78 / 143 = 15.2% calories from fat Game meat, rabbit, wild, cooked, stewed NDB No: 17181 Value per 100 grams of edible portion Water g 61.37 Energy kcal 173 Total lipid (fat) g 3.51 Cholesterol mg 123 3.51 x 9 = 31.59 / 173 = 18.26% calories from fat Game meat, squirrel, cooked, roasted NDB No: 17184 Value per 100 grams ofedible portion Water g 62.07 0 0 Energy kcal 173 0 0 Total lipid (fat) g 4.69 Cholesterol mg 121 4.69 x 9 = 42.21 / 173 = 24.3% Calories From Fat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Many ancient settlements have been found in Europe around the coasts and by inland rivers. all European towns that eventually became cities were situated by rivers. Which means, fish, fish, fish. We would have struggled to get much nuts and fruit and eggs except for tiny parts of the year, also killing large game would have likely been difficult except for a small part of our evolution when we got very handy with the spear. So my guess is that the calories may have come somewhat from roots and veg and nuts and berries, but a larger part will have been fish, then mammals. Where there is veg and greens there are rabbits and larger grazing animals. Would we have sat eating mushrooms and dandelions all day and ignored the rabbits and hedgehogs that passed our way. No, we would have thought the rabbit was a much easier and tastier proposition, then we could get on with other things instead of grazing all day. Here (United Kingdom) the walnuts have just finished season, and the chestnuts. So what do I live on until march when the eggs and small birds arrive ? there would be wild boar, small mammals, plenty of fish and sea food as we have lots of coast and inland streams. And if the ground is not too hard there are roots and maybe tree bark. Plus any nuts and fruits we can preserve and store over winter. So I think the calories would come mainly from mammal/fish. Though I am not arguing for paleo, as I think a heavy meat diet will probably age a person quicker than a more balanced vegi diet with a bit of fish, eggs, dairy and maybe meat (I am undecided about the meat issue) thrown in. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi : Is there good information on when human technology advanced far enough to be able to catch enough fish to survive on? We didn't have metal hooks until quite recently. And the little fishing I have done, even with early 20th century technology, and very inadequate knowledge - perhaps a 'fishing knowledge level' not dissimilar from that of paleolithic times - has indicated to me that you have to be able to run, or swim, REALLY fast to catch a fish! So I am skeptical that the diet of the average paleolithic contained much, indeed any, fish. My bet is that the reason for the establishment of settlements near water had more to do with ease of transportation than the presence of fish. But that is a guess. My view could change if someone were to enlighten me with contrary evidence. Rodney. > > Many ancient settlements have been found in Europe around the coasts > and by inland rivers. all European towns that eventually became > cities were situated by rivers. Which means, fish, fish, fish. We > would have struggled to get much nuts and fruit and eggs except for > tiny parts of the year, also killing large game would have likely > been difficult except for a small part of our evolution when we got > very handy with the spear. So my guess is that the calories may have > come somewhat from roots and veg and nuts and berries, but a larger > part will have been fish, then mammals. Where there is veg and > greens there are rabbits and larger grazing animals. Would we have > sat eating mushrooms and dandelions all day and ignored the rabbits > and hedgehogs that passed our way. No, we would have thought the > rabbit was a much easier and tastier proposition, then we could get > on with other things instead of grazing all day. > > Here (United Kingdom) the walnuts have just finished season, and the > chestnuts. So what do I live on until march when the eggs and small > birds arrive ? there would be wild boar, small mammals, plenty of > fish and sea food as we have lots of coast and inland streams. And > if the ground is not too hard there are roots and maybe tree bark. > Plus any nuts and fruits we can preserve and store over winter. So > I think the calories would come mainly from mammal/fish. Though I am > not arguing for paleo, as I think a heavy meat diet will probably > age a person quicker than a more balanced vegi diet with a bit of > fish, eggs, dairy and maybe meat (I am undecided about the meat > issue) thrown in. > > ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.