This article is an absolute GEM!!! It backs up many of the things Bear has been telling us! Within the article are many, many other links that are also great reading! Anyone who hasnt checked out the above article, i highly recommend it!! Thanks for posting it CGraff!! It makes me re-assess whether maybe i really SHOULD try out an all meat diet!! hmmm...WOW!

Bear,
I know you said your wife isn't on the all meat diet with you, but rather a low carb diet with some vegetation. I am wondering how did she eat DURING her pregnancies? Did she eat low carb? If so, How many carbs per day was she eating during pregnancy? I know Atkins doesnt recommend pregnant or lactating woman to follow Atkins induction (less than 20 carbs per day) but rather recommends The Atkins lifetime maintenance phase of the diet for pregnant and lactating women (70-100 carbs a day). I keep reading about how pregnant woman can't be in ketosis during pregnancy so they need to up their carbs to a safe level. I have also read that being in ketosis (below 50 carbs per day isn't good for the baby's brain development). I really don't know how much truth there is to it! I have run across a yahoo group where there are woman who DO advocate Atkins induction while pregnant, and these woman ARE eating less than 20 carbs a day while pregnant and saying it is perfectly safe. I am wondering if you can shed any light on this at all. Do you know what is a safe level of carb intake while pregnant or nursing? Would your all meat diet be safe for a pregnant woman? If so, Why? I am not pregnant right now, but if i become pregnant again in the future i am wondering how many carbs will be necessary! Thanks.
karen

How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?

This is, IMHO worth a read.
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-.../inuit-paradox/

Fredrerick, I think you've pretty well summed up what we should all take from this fascinating thread. I think it is interesting to note that we can derive some nourishment from many different forms of vegetation and that definitely would have been a survival advantage in bearing and raising offspring in an environment of scarce animal food sources. But to suggest that must make it a healthier human diet is pretty ridiculous.
And yet David is using the spurious net acid load theory to argue just that. And he is also suggesting that because comparative anatomy shows humans to not be OBLIGATE carnivores then we somehow must be OBLIGATE OMNIVORES. David, there is no such thing. Closer examination of the excellent health (particularly bone health) AND longevity enjoyed by all 'net acid load' cultures and the admittedly statistically insignifigant but (IMHO) entirely credible testimony of the Bear about his adult lifelong dietary experience, make this conclusion very shaky.

I'm also a bit dismayed that David seems to also be suggesting that the Bear's experience can not be extrapolated to the human animal generally- i.e. that the Bear must be somehow physiologically unique. This is grotesque.

Then David suggested that the people who found the carnivore = optimal health argument reported by the Bear convincing to be somehow gullible fools. So be it. I must be a fool .

Anyway, good on you Frederick for capturing the essence of this thread.

Very interesting article! But one thing I think the anti-veggie people should note is if you're not eating your meat raw, including organ meat, you're probably not getting all the nutrients you need.

EXCELLENT article.....thanks for sharing!

I also have noticed that. And aside from eating some raw meat and eggs and rare cooked meat, I think eating "traditional" animals with the proper balance of nutrients (i.e. O3/O6 fats) is important. Bear eats grass-fed meat. I have always been concerned about getting grass-fed bison instead of grain-fed beef, and feel I should be consuming at the very minimum the liver of these animals. I also want to consume lots of wild salmon and other wild seafood. I am not certain that people eating only farm-raised meat, with the skewed fat in those animals, are going to be truly healthy. Just not certain they would be.

Very interesting article. It talked about the importance of fat with the meat. What do you think a healthy ratio of protein to fat would be?

About 60-70% of your cals should come from fat. Only about 30 or so from protein.

There is one thing I still don't understand; please forgive me for being so dense.

If there is dietary fat circulating in my body, why would my body go to the stored fat for energy? And if it doesn't, how can I lose weight?

Also, why would mother nature provide us with a sugary first meal, in mother's milk, if we are not meant to eat sugar for optimum health; it seems cruel, doesn't it?

Vision: I have excellent vision. For whatever reason, other than the astigmatism we all get after reaching the 40's (which has not changed in 30 years), I have noticed I retain a remarkable range of accommodation. I was always short sighted, but now not only can I read without any glasses, at a comfortable distance to hold reading material, but my acuity at a distance has slowly improved to a noticeable degree. I do not need glasses to pass a driving test nor to enjoy a theatre presented movie. The lenses in my glasses are undercompensated, but I rarely use them, as they make near things hard to see. I have no idea whether this is diet, but I do think there is a high probability as I seem to show very few signs of aging everywhere else. My lenses are very clear. My dad had to have cataracts removed in his late 50's, so I doubt it is genetics. He also broke his ankle stepping off a curb at around the same age.

Oprah herself is something of a 'ratbag' and supports lots of bogus and ridiculous ideas, like angels etc. The 'doctor' Is a fraud, and his statement is a ridiculously laughable but sadly persistent vegetarian's fable.

Meat NEVER 'rots' or decays from bacterial action anywhere in your body other than in between your teeth (bad breath, but no decay, if you don't brush and floss)- and that is only because the mouth is a friendly place for all sorts of bacteria to live. Your stomach is sterile, and is so acidic that very few bacteria can survive for more than a few seconds. The notable exception is hylobacter pylorii, the cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers. This discovery was ignored for some time due to the strong belief that the extreme conditions in the stomach 'precluded' any bacteria's survival.

Meat is quickly and completely dissolved in your stomach by HCL, it is then treated with pancreatic enzymes in the intestines and is absorbed COMPLETELY in the first part of the small intestine (in less than 60 cm/2 ft.). The feces of a carnivore is composed almost entirely of the body's waste- and only a very small amount of certain colon-dwelling bacteria (which are protected in the appendix). These bacteria do not thrive unless there is vegetable refuse reaching the colon to feed on, and the removal of one's appendix always leads to some digestive difficulties whenever the diet changes or antibiotics are taken. The appendix is part of our 'emergency' structures to allow us carnivores to tolerate short intervals of surviving on vegetation. It corresponds to the cecum in herbivores, but in a highly attenuated form. Obligate carnivores usually lack an appendix or any other structure to shelter intestinal bacteria.

My remarks on my second child's (I have four- all by different women) mother was referring to a former wife- in 1960, not my present one (of 11 years), with whom I have no children. The woman concerned, was on a near total meat diet during her entire pregnancy and only got pulled into carbs while breast feeding after the birth.

Everyone who read everything I have posted to date, should understand that a fully keto-adapted person is NEVER in ketosis, which is either a disease condition or something that happens briefly for a short time after eliminated carbs- the period referred to as 'keto-adaptation'. NO carbs is THE safest level during pregnancy (and all of life).

People who 'gorge' on fat are eating the single most important nutrient for energy,. work and health. This was aided by 'having rarely (usually never) seen a vegetable'- as is resoundingly proven by their noted bad health today on a mixed diet including vegetable sourced foods.

Organ meats cooked or raw are unnecessary, although there is the case for OCCASIONAL intake of liver, raw or slightly cooked. Totally raw muscle tissue is likewise unnecessary so long as MOST of the mass is 'rare' (i.e., raw)- for excellent nutrition. Grass fed or grain fed beef, nutritionally there is no difference, only one of quality and flavour. Just like freezing lowers not nutrition, but quality and flavour.

Fat from your diet, circulating in a body which is carrying excess body-fat stimulates body-fat release, supplementing and thus prolonging the time taken to consume the dietary fat. It also raises the metabolism. Salt interferes with this function, which is the reason not to add any salt to your food. Mother's milk is heavy in sugar for a very good reason: Humans have no effective body hair of fur and there fore no built in protection for loss of body heat through the skin. An adult has a much smaller mass-to-surface area, therefore loses less heat. A tiny baby is very vulnerable to chilling. Add to this the large body and head of a newborn, you see that a fatty baby is going to have a lot of difficulty negotiating the mother's narrow pelvic opening during birth. The lean baby after birth needs to gain a significant fat cover as quickly as possible to survive. Recognition of this basic human necessity is the basis for nearly all cultures adoring fat babies, and classing them as 'healthy', while exhibiting great concern for skinny ones and regarding them as 'sickly' or dangerously undernourished. Nature also provides a first set of disposable teeth ('milk teeth'), not only because of the small size of the baby's mouth, but also so that the permanent teeth are not damaged by the milk diet of infancy. We are the exquisite end result of a very long period of evolution.

Therefore:
Fat baby = Safe and sound.
Skinny baby = Cause for concern.
Fat child: = Sometimes good, sometimes of concern depending on the society.
Fat adult = Not considered a good thing in most cultures.

Good on all of the readers who understand my motive for sharing my life experiences, and the reasons and proofs I found along the way.

Thanks Bear! I get it now.

You say that, nutrition-wise, there is no difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Not even the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio? And the CLA content?

No difference- the fatty-acid content of beef suet is not dependent on diet, since the osmotic exchange of fatty acids into and out of adipose tissue is very small.

Omega-3 is animal in origin thus not a component of an ox's diet, vegetables have omega-6, which has never been high on anyone's list for enhancing health. Omega -3 is produced in an animal's body, it is one of the unsats an animal needs- your own body can and will make it also. Today's paper had an article citing a study in the UK which unexpectedly showed NO significant relationship between omega-3 and heart disease. We know suet has plenty, so what's up?

Omega 3 is not "animal in origin" although we can get what we need from animals that eat vegetation (which is where the omega 3 comes from) or by consuming omega 3 rich vegetable sources ourselves, such as flaxseed/linseed - although there is some variation in efficiency in converting the omega 3 fat ALA (alpha-linolenic acid)to DHA and EPA (docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid) - so for that reason, animal sources are superior, as this conversion has already been done for you.

Your own body cannot manufacture omega 3 or omega 6 fats (we don't have the necessary enzymes to create them as we do for other fats). This is why they are known as essential fatty acids (EFAs) just as essential amino acids are those that cannot be manufactured by the body, so they must be obtained from dietary sources.

Whats up? The study was a meta-analysis of a number of previous studies, statistical analysis of this type can be manipulated to give just about any result.

I thought only fish/seafood contains the long-chain EPA and DHA that we need (and eggs some DHA). Some people don't make this stuff that easily from ALA (like me) so I supplement and eat fish.

It seems that grain-fed beef IS much higher in omega 6 than omega 3 - nutritiondata.com has a breakdown of all the fatty acids found in different meats and as far as I can see, just about all beef, chicken, pork etc has much more omega 6 than omega 3. I'm assuming all their sources are bog-standard grain fed.

theBear,
I read this on your website - "The female hormones seem cause a strong craving for carbs, as the female body isn't fertile without a layer of fat. This makes this diet very hard for women to follow." can you comment on this?

is the salt in cheese okay?

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!

This is great, since I am having a hard time finding grass-fed beef around here. It's all grain-fed Alberta beef.

I am curious about the salt in cheese too; that's the only salt I am consuming since I have stopped adding salt to my cooking. Lately, I have been light-headed though, and I wonder if this is the reason, my body adjusting to the lack of salt.

Dean,
Thank you for answering my question.

So let me wrap my brain around these figures. Should I multiply .70x my calories for the day? That should give me the calories I need for fat??

The same for protein? I know it won't be exact science, but a ball park?? Where might I find out more about this. The Eades talk about getting enough protein in your diet mostly.

I am just not sure how to figure all this out. I have read that you must eat the fat with protein.

Thanks again

This is well worth a read, IMHO and offers interesting links to wade through.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harvest This is well worth a read, IMHO and offers interesting links to wade through. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

Yes, you will note that Phinney determined what percentage of energy was coming from fat (both before and after adaptation) by taking " measures (of) before and after exercise of muscle glycogen and blood glucose oxidation"

... but don't tell the Bear!

Yes, of course it makes a huge difference what the animals are fed as this is the source of omega3 and omega6. For example check out bison in nutrition data. You can also see how easily manipulated this is by examining the omega3 content of eggs from true free range chickens (not grain fed) or those that have been given fish meal and/or flax as part of their diet.

'Animals can't make omega-3'? I guess no one told the salmon or Australian silver perch and jade perch (six times the O-3 of salmon) this, or the many land animals who have it in significant amounts in their fat- but do not eat any vegetation. Another vegetarian myth, my friends, utter nonsense. Incidentally, some stone age Inuit ate no fish, water mammals or vegetation at all, only land animals- and yet had all the essentials- how could this be?

Chemical salt should always be avoided, it interferes with fat metabolism when the body carries an excess (salty sweat and urine). Most cheese has some salt, some have very little- read the label. If you are getting too much, your sweat will taste salty. It takes about a week for the body to stop spilling salt in the urine and sweat. Lightheadedness may indicate insufficient fat intake.

Stef gave a rule of thumb for red meat- the fat should equal 1/6th the volume of the lean to equal 80%. Nicely marbled steaks and 'regular' hamburger mince have about 30% (of cal) fat in the lean- not counting the cover fat.

...A careful read of the article on

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

reveals that contrary to the assertion, 'glycogen depletion' was not taken as a measure, only oxygen consumption. Glycogen STORAGE was reduced during the first TWO WEEKS and thereafter remained stable- not surprising since much of the reason for holding glycogen in the muscle tissue is the need to quickly remove glucose from circulation- it is much faster to convert glucose into glycogen than for the adipose tissues to convert it to bodyfat. Glycogen is not used up or 'depleted' during exercise, it functions only as quick, emergency source of blood glucose- and that is all. After withdrawal of carbs from the diet, the massive glycogen storage in the liver is also vastly reduced, thus facilitating blood flow through the hepatic vein from the lower body and preventing the 'stitch in the side' so commonly experienced during carb-loaded athletics.

Note: 'VO2max' is maximum oygen intake and consumption, a measure of exercise efficiency, not glucose oxidation. The reference to glucose was for regular, pre-adptation diet, not keto-adapted.

It is important to read all the words in an article, not just those you want/expect to see.

Food chain, Bear. If they do not consume any vegetation in their diets, they most certainly consume critters who do or critters that eat critters that do but more often than not, Omega 3 enters the food chain in the form of vegetation.
It's well-established that what an animal eats most certainly affects the ratio of omega 3 and omega 6 fats their body fat contains. If you know of research that shows otherwise, please post it.

Sorry Ms 'lisa the contrarian', why not address the question of the fish.

Likewise, if the unsat's we are referring to are truly 'essential' (needed for life) as is agreed, they must then be consumed in each animal, and not simply accumulated along the food chain from a bottom-of-the pile herbivore like DDT, mercury etc.

I believe I did address the question of the fish. What do they eat and in turn what do their prey eat? Also, why can't Omega 3 be passed up the food chain? Please note where DDT and mercury are stored....body fat.
This is quite easy to show. Chickens who are fed flax meal have higher levels of omega 3 in their eggs. Humans who eat those eggs will likewise have higher levels of omega 3 in their bodies.

Why are we even having this conversation? It is a total waste of time and resources.

I know already you just HATE the truth, but the simple fact is that there are no deficiencies of any essential nutrients, or indeed of any non-essential ones, in an all-meat diet, no matter how long it is continued- period. All the so called 'science' in the known universe will not change that fact one iota, nor is there any imperative to 'prove' why it is so- (nor why it 'should not' be so).

Note, please: DDT and mercury are NOT used by an animal's body, the are toxins and therefore are accumulated, like pica- swallowed non-food items which may accumulate in the stomach. An essential oil is used otherwise it would not be 'essential', and therefore will be depleted in quantity while present in each animal in turn as it passes up the food chain.

The process of understanding how this sort of thing happens is called 'logic', an exercise you might find very useful to help reduce your need to post so much that is irrelevant .

If you will go to Ray Peat's site, he questions the 'essentiality' (necessity for life) of omega3 and 6 acids.

http://raypeat.com/articles/article...eneration.shtml

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that humans cannot synthesize omega 3's and must get them from the diet. The critters that we eat that contain omega 3's must either eat vegetation themselves or some other critter in the food chain that does. It doesn't change your main thesis at all Bear, but in this instance I"m afraid you are just plain wrong. Btw., one of the best sources of omega three's is brain tissue. Lightly fried brains with heaps of butter and a sprinkle of lemon zest. Yum!