Human Carnivorism

[FwL]

Re: Human Carnivorism

Bad guess FwL, at least if you are referring to my post (which is what you quoted). I never said one is "not eating enough carbs", because there are carbs in foods other than vegetables, plus glycogen in the meat. Furthermore, the needed glucose can be obtained part from protein and part from fat via gluconeogenesis.

You missed my point entirely. I said:

"I guess everybody is defensive about "not eating enough carbs" already."

"Everybody" is the clue that I wasn't directing that remark to only you.

About being defensive, I can only guess based on each time I've seen any hint of this subject come up. Any such hint is immediately proceeded by several posts reminding the OP that this is an ATKINS board in no uncertain terms. It's as though discussing anything not in the book is liable to make all **** break loose. I merely speculated that this seeming defensiveness might stem from people on Atkins routinely having to fend off accusations that they don't eat enough carbohydrates. I imagine there are rather more deep-seated psychological factors involved, but I didn't really want to open that can of worms.

[FwL]

Re: Human Carnivorism

Excerpts from W. McClellan & E. Du Bois, "Prolonged Meat Diets With a Study of Kidney Function and Ketosis", The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1930:
Excerpts from V. Stefansson, "Adventures in Diet", Harper's Monthly Magazine, December 1935:
Excerpts from V. Stefansson, "The Fat of the Land", The MacMillan Company, 1960:

This board doesn't want to quote all of your extensive quoting, so I'll simply quote the parts of your original statement that I took objection to.

Stefansson and Andersen also ate most of their meats boiled during the 1-year Bellevue experiment.

Your own quoting dispells this statement. They ate everything from boiled to broiled. Stefansson also spent time traveling where he was required to include bacon and eggs. Both men ate in restaurants fairly often.

page 71

During the early summer, toward the middle of our experiment,
both of us were living in New York City and eating
mainly in restaurants, though there were a few homecooked
meals. At the restaurants we looked over the menu

each time, in the way of a regular customer, and selected

whatever appealed to us. Our belief was that no theory of
what to select would be as safe a guide to health as our

unbiased cravings.

Their meat was usually "cooked lightly" and they ate raw bone marrow.

I think you're confusing the raw bone marrow with the description of Eskimo butchering that you quoted. I haven't found any mention of such during the Bellevue study by Stefansonn's account.

As to the cooking of meat (emphasis mine):

page 66

The answer to the raw-meat scare was an explanation of a
basic procedure of our test—Andersen and I were to select
our food by palate (so long as it was meat) and we were to
decide for ourselves how far each meal was to be cooked.
It proved that usually he leaned to medium cooking and I

to well-done.

He repeats this assertion at several other locations in the book.

Eskimos were eating kidney and intestinal caribou fat, caribou kidneys and hearts, other organ meats (and, by the way, organ meats have carbs)

My objection, here is "other organ meats".

page 88

The way in which Eskimos divide, for instance, a caribou
between men and dogs has been described with some detail;
here the fact is emphasized that the organ commonly spoken
of as richest in vitamins, the liver, is nearly always given to
the dogs—as are the sweetbreads and, indeed, all things from
the body cavity except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys
.are usually given to children, somewhat as if they were

candy.

My biggest objection was to you lumping Stefansonn and Andersen with the Eskimo diet.

I seriously doubt the diet of the average "zero carber" is the same as that of the Eskimos or of Stefansson and Andersen.

Nothing at all in Stefansson's account indicates that he or Andersen ate anything out of the ordinary save for occasionally munching on soft chicken bones.


So.... why the need to attempt to discredit the OP and the "average 'zero carber'" rather than discuss the topic?

[Georgiana]

Re: Human Carnivorism

You missed my point entirely. I said:

"I guess everybody is defensive about "not eating enough carbs" already."

"Everybody" is the clue that I wasn't directing that remark to only you.

No one in this thread said that the OP or "zero carbers" in general need more carbs. Not me, nor anyone else.

About being defensive, I can only guess based on each time I've seen any hint of this subject come up. Any such hint is immediately proceeded by several posts reminding the OP that this is an ATKINS board in no uncertain terms. It's as though discussing anything not in the book is liable to make all **** break loose.

This happens when "zero carbers" come around here saying they are doing Atkins. Which they aren't, because Atkins requires 3 cups of vegetables, as you know. In my time at ADBB, I saw two types of discussions around the zero-carb business:

1. Member is doing a "zero carb", no veggies diet. He/She comes here saying he/she is doing Atkins. We tell him/her that Atkins requires 3 cups (or more, after Induction) of vegetables. Member insists Atkins without veggies is still Atkins.

In this case we are not defenssive at all telling the member that Atkins requires veggies. But it is not fair, imo, to call Atkins something that is definitely not Atkins.

2. (this case) Member is doing a "zero carb", no veggies diet. He/She comes here saying he/she is doing Atkins and questioning why Atkins requires veggies, because all carbs are evil.

We explain the member why Atkins requires veggies. The argument that is most often brought is that of the vitamins and minerals found in veggies.

Whether a member falls in 1. or 2., he is, of course, reminded that this is an Atkins Board. Sometimes because they are advising other members against Atkins (e.g. of reply: "I don't eat any veggies and still lost XX lbs. Go ahead and eat your meat, screw the veggies, and you'll be slim like me."), other times simply because we want to save them the frustration of swimming against the current --- after all, you cannot come on an Atkins Board and expect Atkineers to agree with you that "zero carb" is better than Atkins.

But even in the latter case, members are not shooed away. You should see this from the thorough replies that were posted in this thread.

I merely speculated that this seeming defensiveness might stem from people on Atkins routinely having to fend off accusations that they don't eat enough carbohydrates. I imagine there are rather more deep-seated psychological factors involved, but I didn't really want to open that can of worms.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when saying "more deep-seated psychological factors". Anyway, as I said before, no one told the OP that he is not eating enough carbs. It's an argument that was never made in this thread and, if it was ever made on the Board, I don't recall the thread. There is a difference between telling someone he/she needs more carbs and telling someone his/her diet might/does not supply the necessary micronutrients and that there is no research to prove it's safe/healthy to follow. Or at least not for life.

[mitzimarie]

Re: Human Carnivorism

I imagine there are rather more deep-seated psychological factors involved, but I didn't really want to open that can of worms.

Good grief...

The OP wanted discussion, and he got it. I can assure you that there are no deep-seated psychological factors involved when we try to explain the correct way to do Atkins, on an Atkins support board.

[liv]

Re: Human Carnivorism

You missed my point entirely. I said:

"I guess everybody is defensive about "not eating enough carbs" already."

"Everybody" is the clue that I wasn't directing that remark to only you.

About being defensive, I can only guess based on each time I've seen any hint of this subject come up. Any such hint is immediately proceeded by several posts reminding the OP that this is an ATKINS board in no uncertain terms. It's as though discussing anything not in the book is liable to make all **** break loose. I merely speculated that this seeming defensiveness might stem from people on Atkins routinely having to fend off accusations that they don't eat enough carbohydrates. I imagine there are rather more deep-seated psychological factors involved, but I didn't really want to open that can of worms.

And maybe it works the other way too. I think people who come here and post that they are not doing Atkins are plagued with internal doubts and they want to have this kind of discussion to make themselves feel good. From a personal point of view, I am not going to give it to them. I think I have better things to do.

[mizski]

Re: Human Carnivorism

With only 3 posts on ADBB, I'm wondering if the OP wanted a discussion at all or just stir the pot. Drive-by posters always amaze me.

[Georgiana]

Re: Human Carnivorism

Originally Posted by Georgiana
Stefansson and Andersen also ate most of their meats boiled during the 1-year Bellevue experiment.

Your own quoting dispells this statement. They ate everything from boiled to broiled.

I agree that "most" was not the best word to use there, since we cannot quantify how much was boiled and how much was broiled or cooked differently. But they were clearly preferring boiled meat:

For the summer Andersen and I took a small house near Croton, New York, and did our own cooking. Our chief motive for home cooking was to get a mutton, beef or chicken broth in which we had confidence and which we liked after many years of having used caribou and seal broth in the Arctic. During those several months we lived mainly on boiled meats, including fish.

and avoided fried meats. Something the average "zero carber" would not think about.

And if we are to trust Stefansson, the average "zero carber" would also not think that is probably better to cook meat in big chunks (V. Stefansson, "The Fat of the Land", pp. 88-89).

Stefansson also spent time traveling where he was required to include bacon and eggs. Both men ate in restaurants fairly often.

I agree with both statements, but you omitted the details. Bacon and eggs were ate by Stefansson for about a dozen times in over an year and eggs a few more times, but there were also periods of months without eggs or bacon. And when they ate in restaurants, they ate broiled meat with no vegetable oil or butter contamination.

Originally Posted by Georgiana
Their meat was usually "cooked lightly" and they ate raw bone marrow.

I think you're confusing the raw bone marrow with the description of Eskimo butchering that you quoted. I haven't found any mention of such during the Bellevue study by Stefansonn's account.

No, I'm not confusing that. The "cooked lightly" quote is from the Bellevue experiment study of Drs. McClellan and Du Bois. As for the quote you gave below, I find it important to quote the whole paragraph, not only the part you quoted (I've added it in red).

Originally Posted by Stefansonn
page 66

The answer to the raw-meat scare was an explanation of a basic procedure of our test—Andersen and I were to select our food by palate (so long as it was meat) and we were to decide for ourselves how far each meal was to be cooked. It proved that usually he leaned to medium cooking and I to well-done. However, my "well done" is not to be interpreted to mean cooked to pieces, like a New England boiled dinner. With us it meant that the heart of each piece was slightly pink, about what restaurants speak of as "medium well" in relation a sirloin.

Again, it's certainly something that can be done, but the average "zero carber" who just wants to lose weight by not eating any carbs would not think about it.

Originally Posted by Georgiana

Eskimos were eating kidney and intestinal caribou fat, caribou kidneys and hearts, other organ meats (and, by the way, organ meats have carbs)

My objection, here is "other organ meats".

They were also eating caribou tongue and brain:

Among the Mackenzie River Eskimos, the head was considered the best part of the caribou---not just the tongue and brain, though both were relished [...]

Same for bear tongue and brain, on page 33.

Originally Posted by Stefansonn
page 88

The way in which Eskimos divide, for instance, a caribou between men and dogs has been described with some detail; here the fact is emphasized that the organ commonly spoken of as richest in vitamins, the liver, is nearly always given to the dogs—as are the sweetbreads and, indeed, all things from
the body cavity except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys are usually given to children, somewhat as if they were candy.

The paragraph you quoted refers to what is left after they were done with the head.

My biggest objection was to you lumping Stefansonn and Andersen with the Eskimo diet.

I never said Stefansson and Andersen were following the Eskimo diet, which is why I use "or" here:

I seriously doubt the diet of the average "zero carber" is the same as that of the Eskimos OR of Stefansson and Andersen.

What S&A did was to adapt the knowledge they accumulated while living with the Eskimo to their New York carnivorous diet, e.g. eat a high fat diet (80% fat), eat organ meats, etc.

I seriously doubt the diet of the average "zero carber" is the same as that of the Eskimos or of Stefansson and Andersen.

Nothing at all in Stefansson's account indicates that he or Andersen ate anything out of the ordinary save for occasionally munching on soft chicken bones.

You are not reading my statement right. Just check the OP's diet in his journal. The fat percentage is around 60% (on a good day, because some days is lower) and protein around 40%. No chicken bones indeed, and no fish bones. The average zero carber is also not differentiating between frying in oil or butter and frying in animal fat.

So.... why the need to attempt to discredit the OP and the "average 'zero carber'" rather than discuss the topic?

Did I not discuss the topic? Do you feel I am against a zero carb diet? Because I'm not. Yes, I believe more in Atkins, but I never said a "zero carb" diet can't be done. But the "zero carber" needs to be informed when choosing his meats, not live on chicken thighs, hamburgers, eggs, mozzarella, cheese sticks and diet sodas (as the OP is/was doing).

There is no evidence as far as I know (i.e. published, reviewed research done on humans) that a "carnivorous diet" is more beneficial for one's health than a low carb diet like Atkins. And just because Stefansson and Andersen didn't see any ill effects on their health, it does not mean such a diet is necessarily healthy, because no statistics can be done on a group of two. All we can say based on the results of the Bellevue experiment is that some people can safely follow a carnivorous diet similar to that of Stefansson and Andersen (i.e. 80% fat, 20% protein, various meats cooked in animal fat and/or fat cuts, only ocassional consumption of eggs, etc.) for a year. So while I am not dismissing "zero carb" diets as being necessarily unhealthy, in the absence of research I do not want to use myself as a guinea pig. If others want to do it, that's perfectly fine (but please stop saying you are doing Atkins Induction!). Done intelligently and making sure you get the proper nutrition from the meats you are eating, a "no plant" diet could be safe for some folks.

[FwL]

Re: Human Carnivorism

OK. OK. I withdraw all statements I have made on this thread and profusely apologize to anyone who might take offense to any of my comments. Please return to your regularly scheduled discussion forums.

And maybe it works the other way too. I think people who come here and post that they are not doing Atkins are plagued with internal doubts and they want to have this kind of discussion to make themselves feel good.

I imagine you are very close to hitting the nail on the head, there.

[not2late]

Re: Human Carnivorism

That does take me back to my childhood. I ate some seal, whale, reindeer and a lot of fish when I grew up. And yes we rarely threw out anything. Fish innards and heads are still among my favourite things.
Interesting stuff

There is typically very little waste in traditional diets. Primarily for the reason that to get food, you had to hunt it yourself, grow it yourself, or gather it yourself (and I don't mean gathering it by picking boxes off a supermarket shelf! lol)

So everything that could be eaten was eaten. Everything that could be preserved was preserved. As we became more "sophisticated", we began turning up our noses to things like liver, tongue, etc. Nowadays food is so readily available that we can throw things away. The ironic thing is that "nose-to-tail" eating is very trendy nowadays in foodie circles. In fact, foodies make pilgrimages to Fergus Henderson's restaurant, St. John's, just to eat things like beef marrow bones.

Unfortunately for us modern eaters, organ meats typically have a higher nutritional value than the muscle tissues we tend to prefer to eat. But in some traditional cultures, organ meats are the foods given to pregnant and lactating women, weaning babies and young children because these foods are highly nutritious.

The other thing about food is that the way livestock are raised today, particularly in the US, is vastly different than the way it was raised 100 years ago. 100 years ago, the majority of cows in the US were grassfed. Now the majority of cows are grain-fed and "grass-topped", meaning they are fed their natural grass diet only in the weeks leading to their slaughter. The rest of the time, they are eating the cow-equivalent of Cheerios, which is an unnatural diet for them. So you have to think, do these cows have the same nutritional values as cows 70 years ago?

Probably not, because there have been analyses done on pastured eggs and non-pastured eggs (the type found on most grocery store shelves). Pastured eggs have a higher nutritional quality than the non-pastured ones. The Chicken and Egg Page

So I don't know if you can follow a "traditional" Innuit diet circa 1930 and get the same results reported in that era or if you can follow the circa 1930 diets Geo and FWL have discussed and get the same results reported in that era because livestock aren't fed in the same manner as they were 70 years ago.

Re: raw vs. rare vs grilled vs. braised/boiled

I have to re-read, but Sally Fallon addresses this issue in her book, Nourishing Traditions. I have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that she writes meat should be only be consumed raw, rare or braised.

[SunnySmile501]

Re: Human Carnivorism

With only 3 posts on ADBB, I'm wondering if the OP wanted a discussion at all or just stir the pot. Drive-by posters always amaze me.

I think you hit the nail right on the head!

Why is it that when we, the long-time Atkinsers, who post on a BB called Atkins' Diet Bulletin Board, because that is the lifestyle we follow, have to be defensive in the first place? We don't DO zero carb! We don't do meat and egg fasts. We don't do intermittent fasting! We do follow the 2002 edition and most have some knowledge of prior editions.

We don't go to South Beach or The Zone sites and beat them over the head with DANDR. We don't force them to discuss the superiority of our diet over theirs.

We are being forced to defend our choice of lifestyle so the newbies and those already confused don't get wrong ideas about Atkins. If you want to do a zero carb diet, there are plenty of support sites to join. Most of those people have tried Atkins at one time or another. Go have your discussion with them. It is not up to us to have to defend our diet choice on a site devoted solely to that choice.

These types of threads take away time spent responding to members here with valid questions and concerns about Atkins. Atkins is what we are about. We concentrate on the last edition written when Dr. A was still alive so there is less confusion about the rules. That is not to say you can't be a success while following the 1992 edition, it's just that following one book exclusively makes ADBB more concise and less confusing.

All else is just beating a dead horse.

[not2late]

Re: Human Carnivorism

? for Sunny......were you the one who posted a few months ago that you live near Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm?

[SunnySmile501]

Re: Human Carnivorism

The other thing about food is that the way livestock are raised today, particularly in the US, is vastly different than the way it was raised 100 years ago. 100 years ago, the majority of cows in the US were grassfed. Now the majority of cows are grain-fed and "grass-topped", meaning they are fed their natural grass diet only in the weeks leading to their slaughter. The rest of the time, they are eating the cow-equivalent of Cheerios, which is an unnatural diet for them. So you have to think, do these cows have the same nutritional values as cows 70 years ago?

Not only has nutrition suffered, the cattle now are fed grains and corn, which is unnatural to then, so they have to be shot up with antibiotics for the frequent digestive tract infections. They are given growth hormones to speed up growth, and steroids to make meat more tender. Cattle stand in feedlots up to their hips in manure, so they have to have even more antibiotics.

We have to be careful when eating organ meats from "grocery store" animals (industrial farmed). The antibiotics and pesticides from tainted grains, hormones and steroids are toxins filtered through the liver and kidneys of the animals. Much of these poisons are in the organ meat that we buy and consume from the grocery store.

The main reason that animal fat and butter are objected to is because they accumulate environmental poisons. Fat-soluble poisons such as DDT accumulate in fats, and water-soluble poisons, like antibiotics and growth hormones accumulate in milk and muscle meat.

It's not the saturated fat and meat that is killing us; it's the toxins and poisons that come from industrial farming.

[EmDee]

Re: Human Carnivorism

if anyone is looking for me, I'll be at the zero-carb board extolling the virtues of vegetables.

call me when it's dinnertime.

[SunnySmile501]

Re: Human Carnivorism

? for Sunny......were you the one who posted a few months ago that you live near Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm?

Yes, I live five miles from him. I go out there as often as I can. He is a hoot! Have you ever read his books or watched his DVD? They are my "how-to bible" of sustainable farming.

Incidentally, his apprentice manager, Matt Rales, originally from Bethesda, MD, has worked for the Weston A. Price Foundation and contributes regularly to the Wise Traditions quarterly journal. He worked directly under Sally Fallon. He is extremely knowledgeable and interesting to talk to.

I am so excited!: I am getting ready to FINALLY buy my place in the country. All my ducks are in a row to build my own mini-Polyface Farm.

[not2late]

Re: Human Carnivorism

The current issue of Mother Earth News has an article about him. And interview really. After reading the article, I put "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal" on hold at the library because almost everything I want to do, like participate in a cow-share, is illegal or the unaffordable do to the cost of permits and inspections.

It makes sense that he's in the Fallon-Enig-Weston Price camp...

Anyhow, I'll check out his other books too. Mother and Grit have been my sustainability guides. I learn alot from reading them.