Here is a classical recipe for pickled tongue - very good:

Wash the tongue(s) and dry. Generously cover with coarse salt (coarse, grey sea salt or kosher salt) and leave tongue(s) in refridgerator for a few days. One has to experiment with the pickling time. I would begin with two days for lambs tongues, three days for larger tongues. Every 12 hours or so turn over the tongues to make sure they remain covered with salt. The salt will draw water out of the tongue tissue (osmosis) and thereby concentrate the flavor - it will also make the meat salty, so be sure not to overdo it. When the pickling is done, wash the salt off, boil up enough water to submerge the tongue(s), add bayleaf, pepper (perhaps some juniper berries) and simmer the tongue for 1-1/2 (lamb) to 2 (calf) hours. When it is cooked, peel off the tough skin and cut into thin slices.

Has anyone used a pressure cooker with tongues?

Yah... well I think you know what I was getting at...
And from this article:Sounds like the HG period that led to the Ag period of human history. I think you know very well that I was referring to what people ate BEFORE this time. AND... Israel is a LONG way south of where my ancestors come from! So, it has been MUCH sooner since these foods were introduced into my genetic adaptation... these foods that were (now repeat after me) previously ignored!!!

I do wonder what the driving force was that caused humanity to start using grains as a primary food source. Some environmental factor must have changed to make hunting/gathering nonproductive.

*Moderator note*

Note to all posters: Discussion of illegal substances is in violation of our forum rules. Any posts that are in violation of our rules will be removed, and the member may lose their posting privileges.

Deleted by poster.

Insulin increases to process amino acids (protein), in additon to glucose.

... Which might be why whenever I eat a very large meal of even pure meat I feel that jolt trembling feeling of an insulin spike...
Never seems to fail :/

Since when?

No problem- it is not worth discussing, IMHO.

Hmmm- 'chillies are very high in vitamin C.'. Really? What constitutes 'high'?

Ok, let's say 2% for argument, likely it is far less, however. At 2%, an average spicing quantity of ~one gm. would provide a massive 20 mg! I use that amount in my foods as a bit of flavour about once a week. Forget about C- it is not needed in a rare or raw meat diet. C may not actually be the best thing to prevent scurvy, a 'deficiency syndrome'- the true mechanism of which is still mysterious.

The 'insulin mechanism' is a part of our excellent 'emergency survival' provisions. Insulin has side effects which damage ALL animals over time, however- herbivores are very short lived whereas carnivores are very long lived.

SOME cancer cells are very glucose-avid and need high levels of it to grow. Glucose does not cause cells to become cancerous, removal of carbs from the diet will not 'cure' any cancer- would that such a fairy tale were true. I might be curious about where anyone could find such nonsense, but I really don't much care, it is so outrageous a claim as to just seem silly.

Several grams of 52% mercury amalgam in your teeth leaking into your body 24/7 is hardly equivalent to a few milligrams of mercury bound up in thiomersal, injected once a year- you are suffering from a propaganda overload.

I suggest the questioner re read my posts as I have said not once but several times here that you are born without a taste for anything, but with a sucking instinct. Human milk is sweet. Get the drift?

So you think that stone age hunting was not intense, protracted physical activity?

I know the prime importance of strenuous exercise because my activity levels have varied a lot and have not been constant nor specific in kind for all of my 47 years in this lifestyle, and all times with reduced or limited exercise brought on discomfort and reduced fitness.

In reading my posts, you first need to understand that what I say is based on long term experience. I do not indulge in conjecture.


Slice the tongue crosswise nice and thin and eat with mustard. Very nicely marbled with fat. Tongue is usually the very first meat a hunter- animal or human- eats on killing prey. Beef tongue's taste is unique, very rich and 'creamy-smooth' in texture, soft but firm, never 'chewy'. Not at all like other beef. It is best to lightly simmer (not boil) it for an hour or so- braising it will turn it in to something like leather, as will rapid boiling.

I have never heard of anyone using a pressure cooker, it runs way too hot (15 psi = 250F).

You MUST peel it at once while still hot/warm, or the heavy rough skin will stick tight like glue and you will have to shave it off. Before it cools, however, it should pull off easily. Keeps best submerged in the water it was cooked in (in the fridge, of course).

You know, I suggest all you non-cooks get a copy of the venerated classic book The Joy of Cooking. It covers just about any and all things people eat and has a lot of basic info on meats of all kinds. Understand- ALL cookbooks are chock full of carb-intensive recipes. I only suggest it so you can look up and find out information about each kind of meat and the ways peopole traditionally prepare them. Under brains,for instance, it recommends first parboiling all kinds, but I have found that lamb's brains are ok fried without this extra step.

Never look too closely at your food! That is why we invented sauces. Squid heads and tentacles are the best and tastiest part- for some weird reason Americans toss them out- and only eat the rubber-like chewy part which has very little flavour.

Bear, I tried your chicken recipe for dinner tonight, with the cream cheese and butter under the skin. It was delicious!!! I used a chive and onion flavored cream cheese and added a little garlic powder. I highly recommend this recipe.

I see my answers were not understood or accepted. Perhaps the questions were not clearly enough stated, so the answers based on them were not what was expected, but never mind, let's move on. I am not going to go over it all again, and anyway, it has little to add to this thread.

Why does a necessary hormone for glucose control damage the tissues? Why, if sunlight is necessary for Vit D, does it cause skin damage? I don't think there is an answer to rhetorical questions like this, and what difference does it make? It is what it is, and the best thing is to minimise the exposure, and live with the damage that level causes.

As a case in point, if you suffer a stroke and blood leaks into the brain tissues, why does the immune system destroy great numbers of perfectly healthy brain cells as it cleans up the damaged ones? There are many defensive mechanisms in the body which do some damage as they perform necessary functions, sometimes they cause nearly as much bad as good, but it is what it is, a product of evolution. Perhaps further along the evolutionary timeline our bodies may correct this. I cannot say- it is pure conjecture, not my thing.

'Organisms' in a flu vaccine? The only vaccine today with a live virus is polio. Or do you consider any part of a virus as 'an organism'? How do you expect to go from the mercury in dental restoration to flu shots in one sentence and NOT be taken as pointing out the usual mercurial agent used to invoke an immune response???

I am sorry you feel pain on exercising, perhaps you should find a better trainer. I do not feel pain when I work out, only challenge and exertion. If it hurts, you are doing something wrong. As to why the 'old ones' worked so hard physically in searching for and capturing their prey, well if you don't, you starve. Ever watch kids in a playground? Why would they run around and exhaust themselves if it did not feel so good? I'm sorry, but I interpret your rejection of exercise as good and desirable, as pathological. I also question the direction this line is taking.

anyone ever eat pigs brains??
question..so besides stuff like steak and hamburger..these brains and tongues and tentacles are all no carb also...correct?

Here is an interesting article that shows how, based on our digestive systems, we are a carnivorous species.

I would not eat pig's anything.

Dean, interesting article. A dog is not strictly speaking a pure carnivore, it is more of an opportunistic feeder- thus the slightly longer gut. If he had chosen a panther (obligate carnivore) which is our size, the intestines etc, would have been a closer match. Perhaps this is one reason why dogs were better able (and willing) than cats to adapt to us as our diet changed. Here in Queensland there are packs of feral dogs who feed on the fallen fruit in avocado orchards!

You don't find much carbs in meat, liver is the the exception. Brains have a slightly sweet taste as do kidneys, but I think they are basically very low in carbs. I am not as sure about sweetbreads, which can be either the pancreas, considered the better kind), or the thymus- in a very young animal.

A note on the pig: This omnivorous animal has notoriously bad dietary preferences/habits- they are fed by the business end of (human) latrines in Asia- ('as happy as a pig in ....') and often, even in the western world,can be infested with parasites, etc. Pigs have organs with poor taste and texture anyway. Not good for food.

I read that sweetbreads don't have any carbs, I think really it is just the liver that does, from what I understand and have read in the past.

I've been following this thread - almost from it's inception - with a great deal of interest.

I think I have been intrigued, offended, educated, confused and enlighted. I have enjoyed almost every minute of it.

I plan to give this a try, and have already moved toward lowering my carb/grain/vege intake.

I have a tangental curiosity question. We've all heard about the people the media took such glee in reporting about who either died or were hospitalized for the "dangerous" lack of carbohydrates in their diets resultant from the "Adkins Fad". I always figured that the poor unfortunates never actually read a book, didn't progress through the phases, and never added back "beneficial" carbs.

After reading this thread, and having the idea of "beneficial" carbs challenged, I am left to wonder.... what actually caused those folks to get sick?

Bear, thank for starting this thread. And thanks to all of the rest of the thread regulars who have made it an interesting daily read.

I never heard of that Carlotta. I did hear plenty that blamed heart attackes though on Atkins

I am going on my 30th straight day veggie free. All together since January I think I have done about 50+ veggie free days. I feel better then ever!

IMO, it was a scare tactic and these people were probably sick pre-Atkins and didn't know it.

I also tend not to trust the media as far as I can throw them. And there are days I wish I could throw them.

I'm on my third day veggie free and feel excellent with the exception of my wisdom tooth - which is not a no-veggie problem and started way before I even started Atkins, let alone no-veggies. My fear of the dentist is responsible for this problem... not my diet

I haven't had to nap a few times during the day like I used to. Zero cravings, even tho I ate doughnuts the day before I started this which would ordinarily give me cravings for days. Oh, and I'm down an inch on my waist and 1.5 on my hips.

Works for me

I have a 1943 copy of the Joy of Cooking and it is full of heavy cream sauces and use of the old fashioned organ meats. Thanks for the reminder Bear.

What made the 'high protein' dieters sick? That's dead simple- lack of adequate fat intake. There is actually no such thing as a 'high protein' diet, Protein does not need to be higher than 20% for health and must never go above 50%. There are, therefore, only high-carb and high-fat diets.

Anyone with tooth problems should act at once to fix the problem. Modern dentistry is essentially painless, a good dentist is a good friend. The state of your health is directly connected with them. Teeth are 'limbs'- independent like, say, fingers- with their own blood supply and nerves. Each one is treated by the body as important- trust me, even a wisdom tooth is a good one, and should be looked after. Dentists as a rule consider wisdom teeth as 'expendable'- and want to pull them out (they frighten people with the term 'impacted' which sounds bad but really only means 'not completely erupted through the gum. The covering gum can be trimmed away to fully expose the tooth in most cases. Some people may have mouths too small for all 32 teeth, and to keep them in line and functioning, some or all of the last molars have to go, unfortunately. I had to insist to my dentist that mine be given restoration for the caries I developed as a carb-consuming teen- so I could keep them. One of them has never erupted and is still completely covered with gum- I like to think of it as a 'spare'. I have a functioning tooth in every other location. I have had no caries in 47 years.

I have had one root canal and gold crown from damage done during an amalgam restoration in my 20's, which was not reparable in gold and the nerve subsequently died. I had one more for a tooth which had a broken tooth next to it which developed an abcess which on X-ray appeared to be related to the subsequently root-canalled tooth- this tooth's crack was not discovered at the time, but once into the other tooth my dentist discovered the nerve was still good- it was the one next to it which had broken and caused the abcess- the crack was so fine as to be totally invisible, but was permeable to bacteria, not cariogenic ones- infective ones. I had the broken tooth removed- (the abcess proved resistant to antibiotics- it finally separated in two) and a titanium post and crown installed (gold, of course). All the trouble was in the molars. Once one tooth goes, the rest tend to follow, bridges and dentures are not a good idea. It is very important to take action to keep your teeth, and get permanent implants to replace any lost ones. I have only trauma to threaten my teeth, caries is not a problem with my diet, even if I don't brush...

hey bear -

do you have any piccies of you? - I don't mean to be rude - and obviously you shouldn't feel obliged in any way - but it would be so great to see what you looked like.

I have studiously avoided cameras since the '60's, therefore very few pix exist of me from any period.

Visit my website.

Just FYI-Actually lifespan is highly correlated to body mass, metabolism and nutrient flow in the body-not whether you are a carnivore or herbivore.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~.../life-size.html

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/classes/bio.../HW1answers.htm

http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/animals/lifespan.html

"Actually lifespan is highly correlated to body mass, metabolism and nutrient flow in the body-not whether you are a carnivore or herbivore."

Common error in understanding: body size rules the overall rate of metabolism/longevity- such as between a mouse versus a large rat, etc. NOT between same-sized carnivores vs herbivores... i.e.: The common domestic tabby lives to 24, but a rabbit, which is the exact same size, lives only to ~6 (in captivity- and far shorter in the wild).

Identical comparisons can be made between the longevity of the big cats and similar-sized herbivores- with the same results.

Do I detect a 'grasping for straws', or is it a simply a case of ingrained contrariness, leading to a need to contradict everything not part of one's own belief structures? Seems the case. Not to worry- relax, I have done my homework very thoroughly.

We can discount the last, the pub article. The second shows size/metabolism, which is established. The first is invalid off the line, since it compares a chicken and an elephant, and metabolism as well as body-design differences impinging on metabolism (especially the lungs) in birds are radically different from mammals. Birds are the last surviving dinosaurs.

A) that is not what you stated. You made a broad general statement about carnivores versus herbivores. B) the average life span of:

Cats:
Wild - 12-15 years (African variety)
Domestic - 15-20 years

Rabbits:
Wild - 2-4 years, probably due to being eaten
Domestic - 5-10 years (potential life span, 15 years)



Tiger - 10-15 years.
size-depends on subspecies and sex. Male tigers range from around 220-670 pounds.

Herbivore at the low end of the tiger range:
Topi Antelope-15 years


Herbivore at the high end of the tiger range:
Grevy's zebra-10-25 years





More the second than the first. Yes, I am contrary when I see things stated that are just not true or presented in a misleading manner. Since I know a little bit about some things you talk about and see where you have misstated something, it makes me question other things you say that I don't know anything about. I still don't know what belief systems you think I have or am trying in some way to defend. Since you don't know me, you have no idea what I believe.





Why discount it? It is just a list of lifespans that are easily verified if one wants to go through all the animals listed one at a time. I just thought it would be handy to see them combined in a table format. And yes, I did spot check several of those lifespans listed. I do my homework, too.

You are right. Birds are way different in both form and structure. However, it also compares a dove and a chicken. You need to read the whole thing.