Peat's nonsense is well covered my Mary Enig her;

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyou...ttyaciddef.html

... and Bear, do you think your aversion to having your many factual errors corrected is a symptom of not eating enough vegetation? Just asking!

Um..'many factual errors'?. Well I've read every post in this fascinating thread and the Bear's take on Omega three's is the first 'factual error' I've noticed. There may even be people who think Peat is on the money. Anyway as I said in my previous post his slip up (IMHO) doesn't change the veracity of his main thesis at all. Sailsouth, you obviously don't agree with much of what Bear has to say. But there are enough people taking an interest in this thread not because we're fools, or particularly gullible, or misinformed. We have all just decided for entirely logical and sensible reasons that he is probably right that humans are opportunistic omnivores but optimal carnivores. And there's certainly more than enough people who have discovered the same health benefits over admittedly not quite so impressive time frames to bear ( ) this out.

I do not make 'many errors', I do however make statements which are contrary to some individual's strongly held mythic belief systems about diet.

This is very common in questions about what you should eat or not eat- a social condition which is very much like belief in a superstious religion such as those which claim someone could walk on water and 'rise again' from being truly dead. Unfortunately, while science can conclusively show that religious claims are bogus, it can be easily manipulated to support a lot of wrong ideas in diet.

Brain as a source for efa comment reminded me that I still have a tray of (6) frozen lamb's brains...Yum.

I'd be interested in knowing what 'truth', exactly, you seem to think it is that I hate since I have never once said that humans can't live long lives eating meat only or will certainly develop some deficiency doing so. I do disagree with you on your contention that it is the only true way for humans to eat and that vegetables are poison. Millions of humans living long, healthy, productive lives eating a mixed diet testify against that notion; in fact, the longest-lived humans on earth eat an omnivorous diet.



We are having this conversation, Bear, because if you are going to speak in absolutes and set yourself up as the resident expert, you owe it to those who are reading your posts and taking whatever you say as gospel truth without question to present them with accurate information or at the very least, post some links to where you got those ideas so that others can read them and make an informed decision for themselves. Yes...I know...you have those documents somewhere....
You're the resident expert on how Bear's diet works for Bear, not on how Bear's diet will work for anyone else.

No, it is about an all-meat diet.

It matters not who follows it.

'Bear's diet' if you want to continue to call it that- even though I have made it manifestly clear it is a permanent nutritional lifestyle, NOT a diet, WILL work for everyone who follows it diligently.

There is nothing special or unique about my physiology in contrast to the rest of humanity.

I would welcome any and everyone else to contribute to this discussion who has a real, long term experience with the all meat diet, but I have not met any- so far.

I am sure they would tell us all exactly what I have been saying- Stef, even with his comparatively limited time on the diet, certainly did.

You do not have to put your hand on a hot stovetop more than once to learn what the inevitable results will be, nor do you have to have others do so to prove the validity of your experience, why does my example need to be 'seen as special'? Why is the factual situation regarding my personal experience so hard to accept?

'Where I GOT my ideas from?' Where indeed! Other than my induction onto the path from reading Stefansson's various writings, it all has come from my life, not from some pop article or 'research paper'. This of course lets all of YOUR knowledge out, since your ideas appear to only come from various exterior sources: Nothing originates with you.

The true situation is based not on defining the 'science' of how and why, but on whether or not an ordinary person such as myself would be as healthy as one on a mixed diet.

Referring to my stating the bald-faced obvious, as 'speaking gospel' (a disingenuous reference to the dogmatic, superstitious writings of mysterious long dead authors) is a bit much. I have been showing- by using positive language- that what I say has been tested over and over and over in my life. It fits in with some research other than the ones the objectors subscribe to, and has been found (by me) to be.... true.

The astounding truth, whether or not anyone wants to allow it, is that I am MUCH healthier and stronger than anyone I have ever met who was the same age as I at the time we met, and that includes thousands, none of whom came even close to having the kind of well-kept body I do.

I am using my real, life experiences and information I have found and collected over a great many years, more years than my critics seem to have even LIVED on this planet in fact (?...no respect for elders). My time and effort is being spent in an attempt to inform and assist others. I already understand that the chronic complainers who nit-pick every statement i make which stands in contradiction to their firmly held beliefs (NOT 'truths') are never going to follow nor enjoy this path to a healthy long life, so it really is of little value to any of us who do care to have all the 'static' around. (Once more, with feeling!)

I HAVE indeed posted some links, and they were very important ones, at that. I noticed no one commented after reading (you all DID read it, didn't you?) the one about insulin as the cause of atherosclerosis. This one journal article alone justifies adopting a zero-carb diet.

Now, please- can we get back to discussing important stuff?

I believe that because the animals we eat are fed the same thing day in and day out that they do not get the nutrition they need there for we don't get what we need from them(not true of fish though)In the past most had diets that were diverse in plants,there for we got what we need. I also believe that if you have a diverse protien diet you need not eat plants but if you only eat beef that was only feed grain you would not meet your nutritional needs.
I like vegies but do not eat them every day..if I walk thru the produce and see some and think "man does that look good" I will buy some.

P.S. Bear Unity is my REAL birth name

oh and I think that people that feed there dogs vegetarian dog food should go to jail for animal cruelty

Gosh I think lots of you are being incredibly RUDE and misguided.

I am fascinated by what Bear has to say. I doubt I will ever become a 100% meat eater...but I am not ruling it out. If I only got that we CAN survive on only meat alone from this thread..then that is huge for me, a low carber ;-)

Surely you all have met the nay sayers about low carb? Well thats EXACTLY what you sound like! Its highly annoying and disrespectful, not to mention closed minded ;-)

I think it is clear Bear is posting from his own life experience as well as his own personal studies....or course he is an authoritarian on himself ;-) As we all should be! I don't understand why so many of you feel a need to berate him and try to goad him into an all out P/ing match!

Bear, you know what they say about urine and skunks ;-)

Bear,

I've followed this thread since it's conception, I don't recall seeing this and I would like to read it. Will you please provide a link for it again.

Thanks,
Joanna

Moderator note:

Charmed one, we do not tolerate rudeness to other posters here, as you would have seen in our forum rules when you joined.
If you see any posts that you consider rude or insulting, please report them, using the button at the side of every post, rather than responding in kind.

Rosebud

Bear has said that He eats different meats there for I was agreeing with him, I was saying that eating one animal that is fed one thing, that you can't get more nutition than that beast...is this not true?The more beasts you eat the more diverse your nutition because they do not eat the same diets. This is very true of fish

No, a very 'human' idea, but it is not correct, the meat does not reflect the feed.

What the animal eats is not going to matter so far as nutritive value is concerned, so long as the animal was healthy. A plant may indeed be dependent on its nutrition, but the animals we use for food have the ability to manufacture in their bodies or with the aid of commensal organisms living in their intestines, many if not all of the nutritive substances they require which may fall missing in their diet. Food animals are herbivores, they live on feed which has the lowest level and format of organic-nutrient value on the planet- they are highly evolved, complex organisms which are specialised in converting low value feed into high value meat. Any proposal that the nutrient quality of meat is different due to what the animal is fed is only propaganda serving a special interest, like the organic farming mob. There is no nutritional difference between 'organic' meat and any other kind- except of course, the cost per unit to the buyer.

It really doesn't matter which red meat you eat, all are much the same other than texture and flavour. Likewise with fowl. It may matter with fish, they vary in a lot of ways, some are downright deadly poisonous. The flesh of a healthy animal is a complete food, it is not what they eat, only that they eat enough of whatever it is to thrive and be healthy. Variety in food is a human social-concept. A herbivorous animal will eat whatever plant of the specific group they are evolved to eat that is available unless or until that plant's natural protective toxins cause distress.

Sheep bison and cattle are grass eaters. Deer and goats however are browsers, and will eat almost any plant except grass. The problem with grain as food for the grass-feeding ruminants, is that the natural bacteria in each of the various 'stomachs' are not very good at digesting it. Feedlot cattle are fed a bacterial mix which replaces the normal flora with ones which can digest grain. I do not think this is a particularly good idea, but it in no way damages or lessens the nutritional value of the resulting meat.

It would be nice if people would stop referring to this as "bears diet" since many of us were eating meat and eggs (sans veggies) prior to this massive thread being started. It is an "experiment" for me, and I am still trying to adapt it to my lifestyle. Sometimes I want so badly to buy salad. Old habits die hard.
Just because bear started this thread does not mean he is the "owner" of it. Bears insights are interesting, but hardly revolutionary. I read Stephs article when I first started low carbing; haven't most of us? Is that not why we are here? Because an all meat diet is interesting to us? I was away from this thread for a few days, and was eager to read up. It was disappointing to read all the negative comments directed at davidb. I think his opinion, like all the others are worthy of respect, not insults.

This thread has been fun and informative- even if it is just personal opinion and especially when it is fact or can be backed up. However, it is not fun to read the insults. I am pretty sure most of the people reading this thread get the point Bear- you are a carnivore. Just because someone else is trying to look out for our health is no need to get defensive and nasty about your position.
Debate is healthy too. That is why we call this place a FORUM.

but do you think that a diet with beef,fish and fowl is healthier than one with ONLY beef? All I was saying is that I do.

Atherosclerosis: An Insulin-Dependent Disease? Nestor W Flodin J Am Col Nutrition 5:417-427 (1986).

There are some others. I have not had the time to find my complete file of pertinent articles amongst all the clutter this place has accumulated since the last time I needed them- perhaps as long as 15 years ago.

I understand completely as to what we are doing here, I enjoy all the real questions and contributions... I am criticising only those few who seem only to want to challenge every statement I make, make bold insistent statements in contradiction and demand to be shown 'scientific' proof in the form of published articles in order to accept my experience as fact. I am not a scientist, but I am an avid reader since age 2 and have spent in 47 years, literally hundreds and hundreds of hours in science libraries reading the literature on diet, metabolism and health. Most of what masquerades as 'hard science' is suspect- to be kindly, and some is downright useless. A precious few are true and very good. I did not learn what I 'know' about diet and the human from reading, although it is certainly helpful to find things written which confirm experience, but they are not in the majority- most say stuff I know for a fact is untrue.

I speak from a combination of reading and experience, about 5% the former and 95% the latter.

No, I don't think that any combination or lack of combination of meat is any less or more nourishing than another. To state this another way, you can eat nothing but prime fatty sirloin steaks, three or more times a day for at least ten or more years and have no problems whatsoever. I personally have not done this for longer than about 5 or 6 months, but it was just wonderful- every meal as delicious as the last, until finally the big stash (cryovac'd), bought at a ridiculously low price finally ran out. Variety treats the mind, not the body. It is not necessary in carnivory because any and all forms of meat constitute complete foods in and of itself.

Meat, that is, fat and lean muscle tissue- IS a complete food.

I think where you ran off the track was by transferring your social training to eat a lot of variety because of the low and incomplete food value found in the major portion of the mixed diet- vegetation. If you run the vegetation through an animal intermediary, this problem disappears.

Bear,
you seriously ate NOTHING but Sirloin Steaks for 3 months straight? no cheese, cream, coffee during that time? Just steak? May i ask WHY you did this?

I think David may have brought some of this opposition to his doorstep. But, who knows. If any of my posts seem to be "insulting", I am truly sorry. I have only been engaging in the "debate" on this thread... even if at times it gets a little "heated".

What Bear is saying in this thread is very interesting... and it makes a LOT of sense. For instance, the statement: "Feedlot cattle are fed a bacterial mix which replaces the normal flora with ones which can digest grain." I never really stopped to think about that. This makes so much sense. If I eat grass-fed bison, it will be for the humane treatment of animals, and not for my personal health. Statements like these really make me think. So much of what Bear has said in this thread has made me think... and has opened my eyes very wide to many issues that I have been extremely interested in for a long time. Even if some people think Bear is "wrong" about things... even they have to admit, what he says is going to make people think and go do further research on these issues.

I plan to do "research" on myself. I couldn't care less about being "cautious". Everyone here is eating a certain way because of how they FEEL about what they think they know. If their thinking is flawed, well, so be it. I think that unless people are willing to try things out, they will never really know. This is what Bear did 47 years ago. He was willing to try things out... things that many people have criticized him for. I can perhaps see why he does not like some of the criticism he is getting on this forum. He is probably sick of hearing it after 47 years! I hope he doesn't let that stop him from continuing to make us think about (and question) long established "truths".

This story appeared on the BBC this morning, and I thought it might be of interest to those following this thread:





Another article on the same subject: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...075&postcount=2

I bought a big batch of strip loins (~15 lbs ea) very cheaply and that was what I ate until I used them up. Cheese? Not a major item in my diet. I have always used some cream and butter. As I have said, it matters not which kind of meat you eat, just do as you like or follow what circumstances may dictate. Don't worry the need for variety does not hold in the meat world.

I did not drink coffee until '69 or so, when I discovered boutique-roasted espresso. I began to roast for myself in '73. I gave the tinned stuff away back in the '50's when I connected it with zits, which I think were caused by the very stale oils in the tinned coffee, roasted literally months before sale in the market.

At room temperature roasted bean coffee ages to the point it is nearly undrinkable in about one week. If placed in the fridge as soon as it has cooled from the roaster, it is the same after two weeks as coffee kept overnight at room temperature- the next day after roasting it already is noticeably changed. it is not necessary to freeze it, just close it up and keep it in the fresh food compartment. Green coffee kept in an airtight container and in a cool place lasts for years- I have kept it as long as seven and it was great after roasting. Somewhat different in taste than when new, but very good- some might even say better.

I mentioned the 'new paper' on omega-3 oils already.

Bear, you know about green coffee, finally someone knows what I am talking about! I was thinking of getting some, is the taste similar to regular coffee or is this unroasted coffee? I really want to try this out, I just wanted someone's opinion on it before I bought it.

... and that means that I can't??!!


I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, but I'm afraid that theBear's repeated rudeness and arrogance, even to those who do not argue against him, has finally convinced me that I no longer wish to waste my time here.

Lisa from what I have read mercury is stored in the flesh not the fat.

Benefits for WHO?! I am SO GLAD I have a freezer and can purchase animal food from farmers who are not MAD scientists! I'm sorry, but I DO NOT TRUST the "food" industry! In fact, I ONLY fully trust Mother Nature! She has no "vested interest" in anything! Hence my sole reason in seeking out natural sources of human food... that would be naturally-raised/wild animals, thank you very much!

My favorite web site : http://www.eatwild.com/

Hi, theBear.

I hope that you do not mind my asking, but are you able to stay regular on a 100% meat diet?

theBear,
does it matter what time we eat our meals? like should breakfast be the biggest meal? should you not eat 3 hours before bedtime?

Thanks SO much for all your help. I love this thread!

Hey Bear, was that at the house in LA in 1966? That sounds like Rock's account in his book, a fridge with nothing but a strip of beef to cut steaks from and eggs.

And in general, when I'm at the usda.gov food counts and there's the lipid profiles, which ones are omega-3s? And what do the ratio amounts mean 4:0, 6:0 etc?

An all meat diet should be very low residue so 'regular' may only be once a week or so.