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. Hello, See, http://www.fishsa.com/hookhist.php A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi Rodney, should have added reptiles and worms as well, they are dead easy to catch as did that loads when young. I was thinking of the easy to catch fish and sea food, not the stuff that would need a boat. I would think we have been getting those since we came down from the trees. My own experience is that cockles, muscles, crabs are easy to get by hand, flat-fish and scavenger fish that live near shores probably could catch some of them, so these sea creatures have probably been in our diet since we left the trees. Reptiles also easy to catch by hand (frogs and newts), and my experience is small fish (up to four inch are not difficult to catch in inland streams if you have some kind of bowl). Though if you are talking about the big fish (salmon, tuna etc) then unless you live near a spawning ground then they were probably not in our diet for too long. Also seen tv programs (Ray mear, uk) using wood thorns (hawthorne etc) as fish hooks, so that with a bit of dried young tree bark cut into thin strands would also likely do the trick as a fishing rod, he caught flatfish using just horthorns on a bark rope with little bits of bait. Probably a lot we did use wood for to catch fish and animals. And just seen aequalsz link, so even a split branch can be used, its making me hungry just thinking of this. But I will admit that one thing which makes me slightly uneasy about eating fish/meat is that I am not certain at all how long we spent in the trees versus on land, so I am guessing our DNA was formed more in the trees on a fruit, nut, veg diet and insects then we adapted to fish/reptiles/meat since then. So I cannot work out in my head just what percentage of calories is best for optimum health from meat/fish/dairy etc. Now that I find grains and legumes are a big problem for me, I don't know whether to go a bit heavy on the meat/fish/dairy side or on the fruit side (no stomach room left for anymore veggies). Probably try both and see what it does to my cholesterol levels and blood pressure. p.s (you hit the nail on the head via your starch theory, removed all my starch foods and nose problem vanished, absolutely amazing. Have reintroduced all grains and every one causes a problem (even rice, but brown rice actually bugs my nose more than white, and brown bread bugs me more than white, and coke cola doesn't bug me at all, nor does maple syrup), sweet potato and bananas also bug nose. Lentils also a problem, not tried all beans or nuts yet. And yet to try raw sweet potatoes to see if I react better to that than cooked, plus got to try brewers yeast and wheat bran yet) - but dairy, meat, fish, all no problem at all (so my thinking in this area is now probably a getting little biased). richard ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi : I see your point about crabs, and other shell fish. And the evidence for hooks is interesting. Although the latter does raise the issue as to whether our 'makeup' was determined 8000 years ago, or 70,000 years ago, or 1,000,000 years ago. But I must say I am more open now to the fish story than I had been. Thanks guys. Rodney. > > Hi Rodney, should have added reptiles and worms as well, they are > dead easy to catch as did that loads when young. I was thinking of > the easy to catch fish and sea food, not the stuff that would need a > boat. I would think we have been getting those since we came down > from the trees. My own experience is that cockles, muscles, crabs > are easy to get by hand, flat-fish and scavenger fish that live near > shores probably could catch some of them, so these sea creatures > have probably been in our diet since we left the trees. Reptiles > also easy to catch by hand (frogs and newts), and my experience is > small fish (up to four inch are not difficult to catch in inland > streams if you have some kind of bowl). Though if you are talking > about the big fish (salmon, tuna etc) then unless you live near a > spawning ground then they were probably not in our diet for too long. > > Also seen tv programs (Ray mear, uk) using wood thorns (hawthorne > etc) as fish hooks, so that with a bit of dried young tree bark cut > into thin strands would also likely do the trick as a fishing rod, > he caught flatfish using just horthorns on a bark rope with little > bits of bait. Probably a lot we did use wood for to catch fish and > animals. And just seen aequalsz link, so even a split branch can be > used, its making me hungry just thinking of this. > > But I will admit that one thing which makes me slightly uneasy about > eating fish/meat is that I am not certain at all how long we spent > in the trees versus on land, so I am guessing our DNA was formed > more in the trees on a fruit, nut, veg diet and insects then we > adapted to fish/reptiles/meat since then. So I cannot work out in my > head just what percentage of calories is best for optimum health > from meat/fish/dairy etc. Now that I find grains and legumes are a > big problem for me, I don't know whether to go a bit heavy on the > meat/fish/dairy side or on the fruit side (no stomach room left for > anymore veggies). Probably try both and see what it does to my > cholesterol levels and blood pressure. > > p.s (you hit the nail on the head via your starch theory, removed > all my starch foods and nose problem vanished, absolutely amazing. > Have reintroduced all grains and every one causes a problem (even > rice, but brown rice actually bugs my nose more than white, and > brown bread bugs me more than white, and coke cola doesn't bug me at > all, nor does maple syrup), sweet potato and bananas also bug > nose. Lentils also a problem, not tried all beans or nuts yet. And > yet to try raw sweet potatoes to see if I react better to that than > cooked, plus got to try brewers yeast and wheat bran yet) - but > dairy, meat, fish, all no problem at all (so my thinking in this > area is now probably a getting little biased). > > richard ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Fish, of course, can be caught with nets. There are also fish weirs, which force the fish into a narrow channel. I grew up a few blocks from this one, and even waded out to catch a few (by then pollution had thinned out the fish considerably. You can read about the Paterson-Farlawn weir at: http://www.lutins.org/basnj.html Interestingly, the authors speculate that the Dutch, who settled the area (it's about 15 miles from NY), had been unaware of weirs for fishing until they found them on the Passaic River. The authors have some interesting speculation about prehistoric diet. My own feeling is that humans ate whatever they could get when they could get. Thus we are omnivores. Keep in mind that or forebearers must have faced fierce competition for every food source. Bears like fish too, and berries. They also eat grubs. Farley Mowat concluded that artic wolves fed largely on small rodents. Prehistoric people would have had to fend off the wolves before dining on mice and gophers (as Mowat did). Mike > > > > Hi Rodney, should have added reptiles and worms as well, they are > > dead easy to catch as did that loads when young. I was thinking of > > the easy to catch fish and sea food, not the stuff that would need > a > > boat. I would think we have been getting those since we came down > > from the trees. My own experience is that cockles, muscles, crabs > > are easy to get by hand, flat-fish and scavenger fish that live > near > > shores probably could catch some of them, so these sea creatures > > have probably been in our diet since we left the trees. Reptiles > > also easy to catch by hand (frogs and newts), and my experience is > > small fish (up to four inch are not difficult to catch in inland > > streams if you have some kind of bowl). Though if you are talking > > about the big fish (salmon, tuna etc) then unless you live near a > > spawning ground then they were probably not in our diet for too > long. > > > > Also seen tv programs (Ray mear, uk) using wood thorns (hawthorne > > etc) as fish hooks, so that with a bit of dried young tree bark cut > > into thin strands would also likely do the trick as a fishing rod, > > he caught flatfish using just horthorns on a bark rope with little > > bits of bait. Probably a lot we did use wood for to catch fish and > > animals. And just seen aequalsz link, so even a split branch can > be > > used, its making me hungry just thinking of this. > > > > But I will admit that one thing which makes me slightly uneasy > about > > eating fish/meat is that I am not certain at all how long we spent > > in the trees versus on land, so I am guessing our DNA was formed > > more in the trees on a fruit, nut, veg diet and insects then we > > adapted to fish/reptiles/meat since then. So I cannot work out in > my > > head just what percentage of calories is best for optimum health > > from meat/fish/dairy etc. Now that I find grains and legumes are a > > big problem for me, I don't know whether to go a bit heavy on the > > meat/fish/dairy side or on the fruit side (no stomach room left for > > anymore veggies). Probably try both and see what it does to my > > cholesterol levels and blood pressure. > > > > p.s (you hit the nail on the head via your starch theory, removed > > all my starch foods and nose problem vanished, absolutely amazing. > > Have reintroduced all grains and every one causes a problem (even > > rice, but brown rice actually bugs my nose more than white, and > > brown bread bugs me more than white, and coke cola doesn't bug me > at > > all, nor does maple syrup), sweet potato and bananas also bug > > nose. Lentils also a problem, not tried all beans or nuts yet. And > > yet to try raw sweet potatoes to see if I react better to that than > > cooked, plus got to try brewers yeast and wheat bran yet) - but > > dairy, meat, fish, all no problem at all (so my thinking in this > > area is now probably a getting little biased). > > > > richard ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Right. I'm not sure any of this conjecture is pertinent to us. The article just stated the survivors had to adapt to a diff diet in the jungles, which of course is what humans do. So if someone thinks we should eat like the paleos did, there are a lot of questions to be answered. I question the 1000. That's just the number they were able to find, or reason out, so far. So the "paleo diet theory" should adapt also? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 7:10 PM Subject: [ ] Re: You bet your life... 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.> 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 My deepest gratitude to all for helping me with my query up to this point. This group has, if anything, gotten better over time (maybe the effect of CR? ). As for betting my life, I'm inclined to follow the general principles observed by Weston Price when he circumnavigated the earth searching for common threads of nutritional wisdom in peoples with longstanding nourishing traditions. These include: avoiding processed foods in general, such as refined sugar, flour, canned foods, etc. Eating a variety of natural foods, choosing foods that are capable of spoiling (and consuming them before they do so), Including fish, fowl, vegetable matter and nuts in my diet, and eating them in quantities sufficient to guarantee CR effects. Because of my diagnosed lipid imbalance, I will minimize saturated fats, but not eliminate them. To date, I've eliminated over 90% of the saturated fats I was consuming. My hope is, of course, to eliminate the lipid imbalance, achieve cardiovascular health, and retard aging, while maintaining as much physical strength as possible. My last foray into CR left me so weak that everyday chores, such as mowing the lawn, left me exhausted, sometimes for days. Hopefully my resistance training program will help in this department. Tim > > > 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 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 FWIW, I recall driving by a Colorado ranch with a lot of rolls of hay, and seeing a herd of elk eating the hay. I'm sure the rancher uncovered the hay to "fatten" HIS elk. So I seriously doubt any theory based on any "wild" meat. My squirrels eat a lot of corn. So do my beaver, rats, birds, possum, raccoon. having hunted deer, I found just under the skin a layer of fat about 1/4 to 3/8", although the meat itself was very lean. When we made gumbo with wild rabbit we added chicken (not wild) to get flavor and fat. And cattle eat a lot of grass in Texas. I'd call that grass fed. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Novick Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:10 AM Subject: RE: [ ] You bet your life... >>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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 I recently saw a TV article where a nutritionist stated that there was something in meat that we needed, but she didn't say what. I think it was dish 276, maybe 284 and I'm looking for it's next viewing. It came on just before the nutrition program with Ornish. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: rwalkerad1970 Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:43 AM Subject: [ ] Re: You bet your life... 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 In a message dated 11/5/04 12:54:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, jnovick@... writes: [comments throughout] > >>>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. yes, but I tend to compare to 85-90-95% ground beef. But this reminds me of the time I tried to convince the USDA to allow me to specify chicken queries in ounces or pounds, instead of grams. Layperson me. They refused, but they did take down the 10 megabyte image (the mistake) that they had on their complaints page... ironic. >Water weight can influence the percentage of fat by weight without influencing the percentage of fat by calories. I'm not much one for ham, though. Any others that do that with water? >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. well, then you should know, Jeff: is it chicken, or is it tuna? > >>>>>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) I never had moose, but IIRC all of those massive ruminants have a hump to store fat - and maybe fair stores elsewhere in their bodies, too. Some might seasonally migrate, and also have lean and sparse times in their yearly feeding. So, we might have to ask: what time of year are we measuring these wild animals? Since they do not mention this at all, or mention seasonal variations, I suspect their figures and approach. You want to see really fat, totally wild meat? Try bear. Maybe beaver, too, I'd guess. But what about bear in the early spring? I also expect they are measuring city rabbits, raised in cages. I don't think they've ever eaten a real live wild rabbit. But I have. Well, at least a real live dead wild rabbit. Mostly, when a rabbit looks fat it's all fur. They are really, really lean. But they can get porked up when food is plentiful - though squirrels tend to store calories (nuts) in trees and in holes more so than in their bodies. Still, I bet they got their squirrels out of Central Park - human fed. The only thing I can think of offhand that are leaner than squirrels and rabbits are pheasant. On a deer steak, you can see a little fat on the edges. Like a cow, the loins are leaner. *Also note the bison figues are "lean only", no hump or otherwise fat. Maybe the other ruminants are, too - but just not mentioned as being so. The moral to me, at least: pheasant on plate give more reliable stats than those in database. > >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 In a message dated 11/5/04 1:14:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, jnovick@... writes: >>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. well, you can look in google for "rabbit starvation" (dealing with meat absorption problems after a fat-free week or so), but likely not for the other animals. Also, I'd perhaps contend that the cholesterol numbers are tainted, since I believe their fat numbers are way off from using city animals... so to speak. It's just natural experience: deer (though very lean) are fatter than rabbits and squirrels, and moose/elk/bison are more like deer than wabbits. -- Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 maybe, , what you (and Rodney) have said needs serious exploration. This might account for racial differences in BP, etc. You can't exactly go south for the winter in your mind experiment, right? wondering if CR might/should ideally be not every day, not one fast per week or so, but 3 months per year, with high protein? And speaking of digging in the ground in winter: dirt does not get hard (and brittle) like concrete. Better it was, so you could at least break off pieces to dig down and make some progress. I once tried to get some soil in January, ultimately trying a pick. You just can't do it. The ground is soilid, but not brittle. It'd take and hour or more to get down one inch in a square foot. -- Ken In a message dated 11/5/04 5:44:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, rwalkerad1970@... writes: 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 true, : the shallow water, coastal or stream, fishes are the ones easy to catch. So this poses the question: if the cold, deep water fishes have the EFAs, then how did we get addicted to them? (Presuming not from chewing hard flaxseeds.) -- Ken In a message dated 11/5/04 10:27:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, rwalkerad1970@... writes: I was thinking of the easy to catch fish and sea food, not the stuff that would need a boat. I would think we have been getting those since we came down from the trees. My own experience is that cockles, muscles, crabs are easy to get by hand, flat-fish and scavenger fish that live near shores probably could catch some of them, so these sea creatures have probably been in our diet since we left the trees. Reptiles also easy to catch by hand (frogs and newts), and my experience is small fish (up to four inch are not difficult to catch in inland streams if you have some kind of bowl). Though if you are talking about the big fish (salmon, tuna etc) then unless you live near a spawning ground then they were probably not in our diet for too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 jwwright wrote: And cattle eat a lot of grass in Texas. I'd call that grass fed. well the people in the industry do not. Any use of grain will change the composition of the fat. He is what one grass fed beef salesman told me: Our definition of grass-fed is 100% forage derived feed. No byproducts, grains, or manufactured feeds are used in our system. All energy and protein must come from either pasture or grass hay. The only supplement we use is Thorvin kelp meal which is harvested off the coast of Iceland and is dried using geothermal heat at a low temperature to preserve the enzymes and amino acids. This is given free choice and the livestock take what they need which averages less than 1 ounce per day for an adult beef. Grass-fed beef will have yellow fat. The yellow comes from the beta carotenes in the forage. There can be times during drought, long periods of high temperature, or late winter where the fat may have less color than during vegetative periods. Also some animals store more of the carotenes than others. We do not "fatten" our animals at all. We assure they are fully mature before harvest regardless of their size. Weight is not a factor in our decision making process as to which animals are selected or harvested. Animals fed grain to finish will usually have white fat as they have used up their store of vitamins and some minerals. Therefore grain fed animals are in a sense mal-nourished. Grain feeding at any time also causes a reversal in the ratios of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids. Once an animal is fed grain this reversal becomes permanent. That is the greatest health benefit of seeking someone who uses no grains or byproduct feeds in their production system. 100% grass-fed beef have the proper ratio of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids which can reduce issues with cholesterol and cancer. The beef industry has spent millions of dollars to find a supplement that would elevate the Omega 3 fatty acids in feedlot animals. Of course the answer is simple and has been practiced for hundreds of years in Europe. That is flax seed. Unfortunately the addition of flax seed to the diet only raises the Omega 3, it does nothing to lower the Omega 6 (which BTW is the bad fatty acid) in feedlot animals. his web site americanpasture.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 Hi All, In our childhood, we would go to the creek 5 minutes from our house, grab a stick and clobber the spawning salmon in ankle-deep, 2 feet- wide water in August and September. They were great. It is no longer allowed. Cheers, Al Pater. > true, : the shallow water, coastal or stream, fishes are the ones easy > to catch. So this poses the question: if the cold, deep water fishes have the > EFAs, then how did we get addicted to them? (Presuming not from chewing hard > flaxseeds.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 " if the cold, deep water fishes have the EFAs, then how did we get addicted to them? " >>> maybe we had a period of intense fish eating and marine life consumption in our early evolution. Maybe the aquatic ape theory explains our need for epa/dha type fish/flax fats ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5168/aat/leaflet.html richard .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 >Water weight can influence the percentage of fat by weight without influencing the percentage of fat by calories. >>I'm not much one for ham, though. Any others that do that with water? Have you ever seen fat free turkey breast advertised? Or 99 or 98% fat free cold cuts of any variety, or any other " meat " ? When you see any " meat " advertised as 97, 98, or 99% low fat, and if the amount of salt and/or sugar is much higher than usual, its been pumped with (or marinated in ) in " brine " or " Curing " or " preserving " fluid. Most of these can be anywhere from 18-50% fat from calories. Its another little lable trick, like the ones you can see any tony's website. I actually have a 2 hour video full of all these little lable tricks. Watching all that went on in a manufacturing /processing house, healthwise and humane wise, might make some people a vegan >>I never had moose, but IIRC all of those massive ruminants have a hump to store fat - and maybe fair stores elsewhere in their bodies, too. Some might seasonally migrate, and also have lean and sparse times in their yearly feeding. So, we might have to ask: what time of year are we measuring these wild animals? Since they do not mention this at all, or mention seasonal variations, I suspect their figures and approach. I think we are discussing two different things here. It sounds like you are discussing over percent body fat of the animal. The numbers I listed are percent fat of specific cuts of meat (muscles). >You want to see really fat, totally wild meat? Try bear. Maybe beaver, too, I'd guess. But what about bear in the early spring? Some of these would change dramatically between seasons. >>I also expect they are measuring city rabbits, raised in cages. I don't think they've ever eaten a real live wild rabbit. The numbers are consistant with other numbers I have seen for Elk, Moose, and Bison, and also rabbit and squirrel. They also list seperate numbers for domestic versions of most of the animals. I havent seen any domestic elk lately. BUt for rabbit they have both listed and they are quite different. Well, time for some " wild " berries Regards Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 Hi : What an excellent link that is. Thank you. I remember many years ago 'Nova' did a program on the Aquatic Ape theory. I had long hoped they would repeat it so that I could take notes - but I never saw it again. So it is great to see the arguments in print. Nova mentioned many other characteristics humans have, that other apes do not, which would make sense in an aquatic environment. The only one I remember now was that the hair follicles on human skin are oriented in such a way that they afford streamlining in a water environment. It is difficult to imagine how such an adaptation would confer benefit to savannah-living apes. It was suggested that the aquatic ape, if it existed, may have led a life similar to that of sea otters today. Here is some information (including diet) on these delightful creatures. http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/sea_otter.html http://snipurl.com/afyv I believe some anthropologists are now looking for signs of pre-human habitation in coastal areas of Africa, hoping they may find evidence of human ancestors adapted to living in the sea. Rodney. > > " if the cold, deep water fishes have the EFAs, then how did we get > addicted to them? " >>> maybe we had a period of intense fish eating > and marine life consumption in our early evolution. Maybe the > aquatic ape theory explains our need for epa/dha type fish/flax > fats ? > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5168/aat/leaflet.html > > richard .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 Hi Dennis, "People in the industry" is what Texan raisers are, I think. Although the advertisements or promotions always talk about "fattening" beef, it is too expensive for most beef in the store. Individuals will do that for their own beef, and they do use supplements for good animal health, but the common conception that all beef is corn grain fed is misleading. The steaks that appear in the store and the marbling give me the best clues as to the feeding as the article suggests. And if you can stand the smell of a feed lot you will see not so much corn grain as corn silage. This corn grown spaced so tightly (12"), little if any grain is produced. The silage is put into large cuts in the ground maybe 60 feet wide and 12 feet deep and covered with plastic. Far too much silage to put in a structure. I've seen these like 500 feet long in west Texas. Here for ~3$ per pound we get mostly what we call baby beef (not to be confused with veal). The size of a sirloin will cover a 10-12" plate. The size of a heavy beef sirloin steak will cover a platter and usually the sirloin tip is cut off for a roast and the remaining sliced for "sirloin" steaks. That beef may be heavily marbled if fed out, but mostly we see very little marbling. What I see in other states called "NY Strips" are usually baby beef. Some years back our steaks were well marbled and the USDA standards for prime, choice, and good were changed. Essentially shifted one level. So what we used to eat as US good - a perfectly acceptable and lower fat steak is now US choice. And the old US Prime (heavily marbled) is replaced with US choice. So a lot of misconceptions exist as to the fed out idea of Prime versus what's usually sold in the store which is basically the old category of US Good. I have always eaten US Good, the non-fed out variety, when I ate/eat beef and most of that in average restaurants is not marbled. Simple reason is economics. I don't know what they do in the UK, but here the grass is so abundant that to not use it would be foolish. A rancher can actually make more money selling the hay to others that want to feed out their personal cattle. Many people have a small tract 5-10 acres to grow their own beef, which they harvest at the weight which you would send it to the feed lot to "feed out" for 6 months. The process is simply too expensive to do and sell at auction for 0.75 $ per pound. Check around the internet for feed lot prices, auction prices before and after feeding. Then figure to buy land in cheaper areas, even in Texas will be 3000$ per acre. Here there are a LOT of cattle grazing year round just 60 miles N of Houston. You must graze it, just to pay the taxes, if you don't plan to develop it for people's houses. The upshot is there is a lot of grazed beef and baby beef is now cheap and acceptable. We are happy with that quality because tenderness relies more on exercise than feed. Shorten the spread of the animal for several months before harvest and the meat will be tender. Some raisers prefer to shorten the spread and cut the hay for feeding rather than graze because they think the animal will trod down more than he eats. What fancy restaurants do is buy at auction and feed out their own beef, but they don't try to sell it in stores. My feeling is the average beef in our stores is about as close as we'll likely get to "paleo quality" beef. We have small ranchers that are aware of that demand, BTW. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis De Jarnette Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [ ] You bet your life... jwwright wrote: And cattle eat a lot of grass in Texas. I'd call that grass fed.well the people in the industry do not. Any use of grain will change the composition of the fat.He is what one grass fed beef salesman told me:Our definition of grass-fed is 100% forage derived feed. No byproducts, grains, or manufactured feeds are used in our system. All energy and protein must come from either pasture or grass hay. The only supplement we use is Thorvin kelp meal which is harvested off the coast of Iceland and is dried using geothermal heat at a low temperature to preserve the enzymes and amino acids. This is given free choice and the livestock take what they need which averages less than 1 ounce per day for an adult beef. Grass-fed beef will have yellow fat. The yellow comes from the beta carotenes in the forage. There can be times during drought, long periods of high temperature, or late winter where the fat may have less color than during vegetative periods. Also some animals store more of the carotenes than others. We do not "fatten" our animals at all. We assure they are fully mature before harvest regardless of their size. Weight is not a factor in our decision making process as to which animals are selected or harvested. Animals fed grain to finish will usually have white fat as they have used up their store of vitamins and some minerals. Therefore grain fed animals are in a sense mal-nourished. Grain feeding at any time also causes a reversal in the ratios of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids. Once an animal is fed grain this reversal becomes permanent. That is the greatest health benefit of seeking someone who uses no grains or byproduct feeds in their production system. 100% grass-fed beef have the proper ratio of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids which can reduce issues with cholesterol and cancer. The beef industry has spent millions of dollars to find a supplement that would elevate the Omega 3 fatty acids in feedlot animals. Of course the answer is simple and has been practiced for hundreds of years in Europe. That is flax seed. Unfortunately the addition of flax seed to the diet only raises the Omega 3, it does nothing to lower the Omega 6 (which BTW is the bad fatty acid) in feedlot animals. his web site americanpasture.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 In a message dated 11/6/04 8:45:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, jnovick@... writes: >>I also expect they are measuring city rabbits, raised in cages. I don't think they've ever eaten a real live wild rabbit. The numbers are consistant with other numbers I have seen for Elk, Moose, and Bison, and also rabbit and squirrel. They also list seperate numbers for domestic versions of most of the animals. I havent seen any domestic elk lately. BUt for rabbit they have both listed and they are quite different. Not to beat a dead rabbit, but I'd still maintain that their figures are showing way too much fat. There is necessarily a point where real world experience trumps the database. Maybe one day for kicks I'll write to NIH and see how they explain this. -- Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 >>Not to beat a dead rabbit, but I'd still maintain that their figures are showing way too much fat. These numbers are from a different source, (Dr. Brewer, University of Illinois; North Dakota State University) yet reveal almost identical results with again, the elk, moose being 2 of the lowest. http://www.solutions.uiuc.edu/printme.cfm?item=308 >>There is necessarily a point where real world experience trumps the database. I agree real world experience is important. But, we cant ignore consistant analysis. And often science has shown real world experience to not always be correct. I also asked, which I dont think you answered...., are we talking about 2 different things, one being overall percent body fat of the animal, and two being the percent fat of a piece of muscle meat. It is easy for these to show different results. >>Maybe one day for kicks I'll write to NIH and see how they explain this. Most Universities and communites have " coporate extension services " where they have this kind of information and may be able to help also. If you do find out something different, let me know thanks Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 They ain't no fat in a Texas wild rabbit. We gumbo them with chiken. Deer meat is only fat if they've been getting corn, lured to a blind. Even those will not have any marbling in the muscles. They may have 1/4 " fat under the back skin (which no one eats). This is why we find the right feeds for livestock. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: bpinfo@... Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [ ] You bet your life... The numbers are consistant with other numbers I have seen for Elk, Moose, and Bison, and also rabbit and squirrel. They also list seperate numbers for domestic versions of most of the animals. I havent seen any domestic elk lately. BUt for rabbit they have both listed and they are quite different.Not to beat a dead rabbit, but I'd still maintain that their figures are showing way too much fat. There is necessarily a point where real world experience trumps the database. Maybe one day for kicks I'll write to NIH and see how they explain this.-- Ken 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.