Re: Absolutely No Grains, Paleolithic anyone?(was: Getting bett

[Guest guest]

,

> --- Holt <danthemanholt@...> wrote:

>> 280g of protein

>> 280g of fat

>> 294g of carbs

>> All in one day...

>

> , using the standard estimates of calories per gram, this diet in

> terms of calories comes out to a total of 4,816 calories and:

>

> percent of total calories

> 23.3 protein

> 52.3 fat

> 24.4 carbs

The protein and carb content is probably even lower since the milk has

a much higher fat content than anything we drink.

> So, if these figures are correct, the Masai diet is fairly low-carb

> percentage wise, but very high in overall calories.

I wouldn't call that low carb. It might not be high carb but it

certainly isn't low carb.

> Of course, milk has no fructose, which I find very interesting from a

> nutrition and health perspective. Milk is certainly not a high-carb food,

> with only 25-30% of calories as carbs, but I suspect that any traditionally

> successful high-carb diet would also be low in fructose, but haven't

> researched it.

Great insight and that would be correct. Best I can tell even when

fructose was consumed it was seasonal for only short periods of time.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

The Masai's milk is low carb and protein? How is that?

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:29 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> --- Holt <danthemanholt@...> wrote:

>> 280g of protein

>> 280g of fat

>> 294g of carbs

>> All in one day...

>

> , using the standard estimates of calories per gram, this diet in

> terms of calories comes out to a total of 4,816 calories and:

>

> percent of total calories

> 23.3 protein

> 52.3 fat

> 24.4 carbs

The protein and carb content is probably even lower since the milk has

a much higher fat content than anything we drink.

> So, if these figures are correct, the Masai diet is fairly low-carb

> percentage wise, but very high in overall calories.

I wouldn't call that low carb. It might not be high carb but it

certainly isn't low carb.

> Of course, milk has no fructose, which I find very interesting from a

> nutrition and health perspective. Milk is certainly not a high-carb food,

> with only 25-30% of calories as carbs, but I suspect that any traditionally

> successful high-carb diet would also be low in fructose, but haven't

> researched it.

Great insight and that would be correct. Best I can tell even when

fructose was consumed it was seasonal for only short periods of time.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

Perhaps excess protein is only bad for a person on a high carb diet.

On a high fat moderate carb diet the Masai may have depleted their glycogen

stores with their high activity. Their excessive protein would convert to

ketones perhaps. I don't know the science all that well.

Other nutrients they would be lacking with their all milk diet are the various

other cofactors only found in animal flesh. That would be including the lard,

organ meats, and other parts of the animals tissue such as the joints and

cartilage. I wonder if they ever ate insects or types of eggs too. I guess

they had their occasional herbs.

How were Masai's milk different?

Adaptation is a confusing subject. Why would cultures consume food that makes

them sick. They didn't know it would take generations for them to adapt.

Perhaps they increased the amount of milk drank with each generation until they

had no allergies to it. Or perhaps raw milk doesn't cause allergies...

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:28 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

Dan the man :-)

> I'm not making a point, more of an observation.

>

> I wonder if that high protein shortened their lifespan. Weston Price never

> took note of that.

I'm not sure why it would. As a percentage of calories their protein

consumption wasn't all that bad.

> High protein intake can create dificiencies, but with all those nutrients it

> may have counterbalanced it. They had milk every 3 days, and all meat the

> fourth day.

Perhaps their is an absolute limit on the amount of protein one can

ingest without problems, but as a percent of their diet, there is no

reason why protein would cause problems.

> They probably refueled their nutrients with liver, bones, blood, etc. On the

> fourth day. Do you have anything to add?

Yes, why would they be refueling their nutrients on the fourth day?

What exactly were they missing the first three days? IIRC blood was

used only in emergencies and the fat content of their milk was far

beyond anything we drink today.

> That's all I know about them. It's

> crazey that they had so much protein at such a low bodyweight...any

> thoughts?

>

> One thing you have got to realize, they adapted over generations to handle

> the lactose in milk.

I'm not sure I realize that. I have often wondered how this adaptation

thing works. Did generations of Masai endure sickness and disease

eating foods they were not adapted to because that is all that was

available? Or were there former Masai who ate " correctly " alongside

those who ate " incorrectly " by consuming milk, but eventually paved

the way for all Masai to drink large quantities of milk? Does it mean

one day the human race will be genetically adapted to handle junk

food?

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

,

> I'm not a paleo spy ;-) I am eating a low carb diet that is consistent with

> the principles of WAPF.

>

> I don't know much about the paleo movement, but I do think that the

> predominant food of our ancestors was meat--when it was available.

By paleo I mean someone who eats a natural low carb diet and then

comes to the conclusion that such is a superior diet. A lot of paleo

people claim on the one hand to be a follower of the principles of

Weston Price, and then on the other hand speak of the superiority of

the low carb diet. You cannot get to the latter following the

principles of Weston Price.

> But I also get the impression that a common paleo mis-perception is that

> ancient people's didn't eat many carbs. When meat wasn't available in

> sufficient quantities, they still had eat so carbs were a fall back or a

> filler. As it still is to this day--why do add oatmeal to meatloaf? Meat was

> frequently in short supply so I think paleolithic people ate a lot of carbs.

On the other hand, even mostly meat eating people, like the Inuit,

would eat plant foods when available seasonally, and they also made

their own alcoholic beverages. So I don't think it is as simple as a

lack of meat leads to eating carbs to make up for that lack.

> I do think that most primitive groups will eat mostly meat if it's

> available.

I think they will eat whatever is available, be it meat or plants, but

have learned over the centuries what is absolutely necessary to

maintain good health, which always seems to include some type of

meat/seafood, even if they have to go to great lengths to get the

stuff.

> Stefansson claims that no skulls were found with cavities in Iceland for the

> 600 year period before grains were introduced into the diet. The inhabitants

> at the time ate what he called a " hunters " diet or a " herdsmans " diet. This

> means meat and dairy with some vegetables, but no grains.

>

> Price observed some groups that eat mostly meat and other's that eat meat

> once a week and both seemed healthy until sugar and white flour showed up.

>

> But of course Price found lots of people with good teeth that ate grains so

> I think that all the advice from WAPF about proper grain processing are well

> founded.

Yes, carbs, contrary to what many low carbers espouse, are not

necessarily a " demon " food to be indulged in as if it were some grave

sin against the nutritional gods.

> To me a balanced diet is just that, no single macro nutrient over 50% of

> calories. a diet high in one macronutrient would be over 50%. What else

> could high mean? You can't have more than 100% :-)

It means more than what conventional wisdom would associate as being a

good or safe level to consume a particular macro-nutrient. That is why

a diet low in total fat (per conventional wisdom) can still be high in

saturated fat (per conventional wisdom), like the Kitavans, whose

saturated fat consumption is well in excess of what is considered

high, while still consuming what many would consider low fat, and

which is lower than what WAPF (not WAP) recommends.

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

[Guest guest]

>

> On the other hand, even mostly meat eating people, like the Inuit,

> would eat plant foods when available seasonally, and they also made

> their own alcoholic beverages. So I don't think it is as simple as a

> lack of meat leads to eating carbs to make up for that lack.

Sorry for having to ask this newbie question.

Were there any groups at all who were carb-less? It sounded like the Eskimos

that Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with were (but then, I've only read one of his

articles).

Did anybody (Price, Stefansson, etc) find any groups at all that were not eating

any plant material?

Lis

[Guest guest]

Lis,

> Sorry for having to ask this newbie question.

>

> Were there any groups at all who were carb-less?

As far as I can tell, no. But I'm open to correction.

> It sounded like the Eskimos

> that Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with were (but then, I've only read one of

> his articles).

They ate plants seasonally and drank alcohol, plus some organ meats

have a good amount of carbs

> Did anybody (Price, Stefansson, etc) find any groups at all that were not

> eating any plant material?

While I have seen claims in various places on the web that suggest

there were a few 100% carnivorous groups, I am not aware of any

(usually those making the claim include the Inuit). But the Masai,

since they consumed only milk, meat, and blood, had a no plant food

diet, but it certainly was not carb free.

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

[Guest guest]

In " The Fat of the Land " Stefansson makes the claim that given a choice the

Eskimos he lived with would eat almost nothing but meat. Their view was that

fruits and vegetables were either occasional treats, like berries in season or a

food of last resort. They would eat their dogs over vegetables--so that shows

your their devotion to meat.

He also discusses his archaeological work in Iceland were it appears that for

600 years people ate mostly meat and dairy or what he calls the " herdsmans "

diet. They apparently could not grow cereal grains and did not start importing

them until fairly recently. He postulated at the time that there were no skulls

with cavities during this 600 year period. I don't know if this observation has

been refuted since he made it.

Lastly, according to Stefansson, the aboriginals in Australia apparently would

eat nothing but meat if it was available in sufficient quantity.

I suggest getting a copy of " The Fat of the Land " and reading it for yourself.

It's a pretty amazing work.

>

> Lis,

>

>

> > Sorry for having to ask this newbie question.

> >

> > Were there any groups at all who were carb-less?

>

> As far as I can tell, no. But I'm open to correction.

>

> > It sounded like the Eskimos

> > that Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with were (but then, I've only read one of

> > his articles).

>

> They ate plants seasonally and drank alcohol, plus some organ meats

> have a good amount of carbs

>

>

> > Did anybody (Price, Stefansson, etc) find any groups at all that were not

> > eating any plant material?

>

> While I have seen claims in various places on the web that suggest

> there were a few 100% carnivorous groups, I am not aware of any

> (usually those making the claim include the Inuit). But the Masai,

> since they consumed only milk, meat, and blood, had a no plant food

> diet, but it certainly was not carb free.

>

>

> --

> " What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

> President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

> all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

>

> Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

>

[Guest guest]

Except nothing below addresses what I said, and I have read Stefansson.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, paulsonntagericson

<paulsonntagericson@...> wrote:

>

>

> In " The Fat of the Land " Stefansson makes the claim that given a choice the

> Eskimos he lived with would eat almost nothing but meat. Their view was that

> fruits and vegetables were either occasional treats, like berries in season

> or a food of last resort. They would eat their dogs over vegetables--so that

> shows your their devotion to meat.

>

> He also discusses his archaeological work in Iceland were it appears that

> for 600 years people ate mostly meat and dairy or what he calls the

> " herdsmans " diet. They apparently could not grow cereal grains and did not

> start importing them until fairly recently. He postulated at the time that

> there were no skulls with cavities during this 600 year period. I don't know

> if this observation has been refuted since he made it.

>

> Lastly, according to Stefansson, the aboriginals in Australia apparently

> would eat nothing but meat if it was available in sufficient quantity.

>

> I suggest getting a copy of " The Fat of the Land " and reading it for

> yourself. It's a pretty amazing work.

>

>

>

>

>>

>> Lis,

>>

>>

>> > Sorry for having to ask this newbie question.

>> >

>> > Were there any groups at all who were carb-less?

>>

>> As far as I can tell, no. But I'm open to correction.

>>

>> > It sounded like the Eskimos

>> > that Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with were (but then, I've only read one

>> > of

>> > his articles).

>>

>> They ate plants seasonally and drank alcohol, plus some organ meats

>> have a good amount of carbs

>>

>>

>> > Did anybody (Price, Stefansson, etc) find any groups at all that were

>> > not

>> > eating any plant material?

>>

>> While I have seen claims in various places on the web that suggest

>> there were a few 100% carnivorous groups, I am not aware of any

>> (usually those making the claim include the Inuit). But the Masai,

>> since they consumed only milk, meat, and blood, had a no plant food

>> diet, but it certainly was not carb free.

>>

>>

>> --

>> " What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

>> President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

>> all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

>>

>> Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

>>

>

>

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

[Guest guest]

,

> In " The Fat of the Land " Stefansson makes the claim that given a choice the

> Eskimos he lived with would eat almost nothing but meat. Their view was that

> fruits and vegetables were either occasional treats, like berries in season

> or a food of last resort. They would eat their dogs over vegetables--so that

> shows your their devotion to meat.

It wasn't a devotion per se, but a devotion to remaining alive, as

they would only eat their dogs during times of famine.

> He also discusses his archaeological work in Iceland were it appears that

> for 600 years people ate mostly meat and dairy or what he calls the

> " herdsmans " diet.

But a herdsman diet is not a 100% carnivorous diet.

> They apparently could not grow cereal grains and did not

> start importing them until fairly recently. He postulated at the time that

> there were no skulls with cavities during this 600 year period. I don't know

> if this observation has been refuted since he made it.

I'm not sure what difference it makes in this thread

> Lastly, according to Stefansson, the aboriginals in Australia apparently

> would eat nothing but meat if it was available in sufficient quantity.

If you could post that reference from Stefansson it would be helpful.

I would be interested in any verified references to any group who ate

nothing but meat.

> I suggest getting a copy of " The Fat of the Land " and reading it for

> yourself. It's a pretty amazing work.

Yes Stefansson is quite good.

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:25 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Except nothing below addresses what I said, and I have read Stefansson.

>

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, paulsonntagericson

> <paulsonntagericson@...> wrote:

Sorry , didn't mean to sound so " matter of fact. " I shouldn't even

be on the lists right now :-)

I will check back in about a week.

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P