Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 08:36
NEMarvin's Avatar
NEMarvin NEMarvin is offline
Boldly going...
Posts: 794
 
Plan: Lazy keto
Stats: 410/334.4/225 Male 75 inches
BF:40/35%/17%
Progress: 41%
Location: Lincoln, NE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Anyways, like previous posters said, cooking destroys nutrients, and that's the safe bet I go with.


This is the information I was looking for. And, I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong), that this becomes more crucial when you are eating ZC and you depend upon 100% of your nutrients to come from meat; hence why you responded as you did to the original comment about eating raw meat.

From a practical standpoint, I understand what Amber was saying when she answered "no." Perhaps her answer wasn't strictly scientifically correct, and maybe the correct answer is "maybe," but from the standpoint of a novice reading her blog--a novice who might be considering ZC for the first time--a "yes" or "maybe" answer may have caused them to stop reading and considering there. I will admit, that if back in 2003, before I ever tried LC the first time, someone had told me that IF was a necessity, I would have run away screaming assuming they were crazy. But--I think that IF is a good compliment to LCHF, and may help my body in it's necessary processes, and I have "discovered" it and worked into it on my own time, doing my own ancillary research once I had the "basics" of LC downpat.

Summarizing it this way: Extreme positions, while perhaps technically "correct," will have a way of frightening the less extreme members of any community.

Now that I am following both ZIOH and Principia Carnviora on FB (though not really an active participant), and I have read their FAQs, have read the posts of those who are long-termers and short-termers, I am more in tune with the more difficult messages they have to say. I am eating my meat "more rare" than I did before. My mind is not necessarily forcing myself to eat a vegetable; I'm feeling it's okay to eat just meat on occasion. Reading what you say about eating a bite raw, then the rest of the meat as rare does begin to seem more palatable (both figuratively and literally).
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 08:38
NEMarvin's Avatar
NEMarvin NEMarvin is offline
Boldly going...
Posts: 794
 
Plan: Lazy keto
Stats: 410/334.4/225 Male 75 inches
BF:40/35%/17%
Progress: 41%
Location: Lincoln, NE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkor
Principia Carnivora is a Facebook group that is a bit more open than the ZIOH crew, if you want to check out that community. Lots of good articles and comments.


Thanks Kikor...I have found that one as well, and I do seem to think that the "leaders" seem much less "nasty" in their answers. Are you a member there? Do you post often?
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 09:43
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

Marvin, there is a ZC thread here in this forum. It's not particularly active right now, but I got a lot of information on the WOE from it, as well as by following links in the thread.

Do an advanced search for "zero carb" and you should find it.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 09:57
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is offline
Posts: 8,056
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
I'm not that knowledgeable, I'm just some guy.


I'd also like to address what Meme#1 said. Specifically that animals have worms, their meat has worms, cooking destroys those and destroys ameba. I agree. On the other hand, I also think that if we assume we're fully adapted to eat meat, and especially raw meat, then it follows that we should also be adapted to deal with whatever is in that meat normally. On the third hand, I don't really like to find something wrong with my meat, so I don't eat that particular piece of meat, I'll eat another piece that looks right, that looks like it came from a healthy animal. I can remember only one time when I was eating a nice juicy pork chop cooked to perfection and something was just wrong when I was cutting it up in my plate. Well, that was it for that pork chop, it went straight in the garbage. I took another pork chop and that one was fine so I ate that one. So I guess here it's about how good the meat is, how healthy the animal is, how clean the butcher's tools are, how clean the slaughterhouse's tools are, how well the animals were fed, etc. If everything's good at every step, the meat is good it's not infected or anything, then it's just a matter of personal taste.


Not just animals have worms, my daughter is a big salt water fisherperson and the bigger the fish the more worm infested it is.
Tapeworms that is.
She releases the big ones...
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 10:38
PilotGal PilotGal is offline
Look up to the sky
Posts: 42,448
 
Plan: Real Human Diet
Stats: 206.6/170/150 Female 65.5"
BF:much better
Progress: 65%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkor
Principia Carnivora is a Facebook group that is a bit more open than the ZIOH crew

oh, much, much, much, much more nicer and respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 12:15
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,970
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Rob, you should start with the Bellevue all-meat experiment if you have questions about eating only meat. Direct link to one of the papers written on it: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf

I'm looking for a BG number but I don't find it in that paper. In my personal experience, when I ate all-meat, my BG was 67mg/dl. I didn't suffer anything that could be described as hypoglycemia or anything like that. On the contrary, I had ample energy, my brain was working just fine and even better than it ever did before or since. If there was a risk of losing muscle mass due to protein loss from conversion to glucose, I didn't see it, I was getting stronger, not weaker. Don't take my word for it, I'm just some guy and I didn't measure anything with any accuracy. But I think that if that's how it went for me, then that's how it must also go for others, and you should be able to find some info on that elsewhere. If you find contradictory info, dig deeper.

If you want to try it, there's only a few simple rules you gotta stick with. Eat when hungry and to satiety, eat enough fat, don't overcook so eat fresh meat most of the time. The term fresh has a specific meaning here. It means that it hasn't been cooked, not that it's been recently killed or recently butchered or cut, or it hasn't been cured. Cured meat is still fresh if it hasn't been cooked before curing, see? Cooking destroys some elements, those elements are essential. I'm not too sure which elements they are, but they're there and they make the difference between health and disease like scurvy for example. I think it's the lean meat that needs to be fresh, the fat can be cooked all the way through. It's because of pemmican, which is a mix of rendered fat and raw dried lean meat, and it's just as good as fresh meat. Rendered fat is cooked, it's just cooked in water. And raw dried lean meat hasn't been cooked, it's just dried.

Martin, thanks, I'm very familiar with the Stefansson experiment. I'm not discrediting zero carb. I'd simply like to know more about an all fat/protein diet and how it impacts the metabolism. I currently moderate my protein in order to keep gluconeogenesis to a minimum. I have no doubt Stefansson did not experience loss of muscle mass, as he ate a healthy amount of protein to prevent this from happening. As for scurvy, it seems that it was never an issue for Stafansson and others who eat this way, as they don't suffer the same malady that sailors did in the past when they were eating hard bread and carbs that could be packed away for an ocean voyage. Vitamin C supplementation (limes/lemons) is necessary in those conditions. Amazing what the human body can do when it's fed what it's intended to consume!!!

Last edited by GRB5111 : Mon, Feb-15-16 at 12:24.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 15:55
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

Frankly, of all the world-view shattering studies that Gary Taubes introduces in GCBC, the Bellevue experiment is the one that was most fascinating to me.

My next door neighbor is a biochemistry professor at the U, specializing in diseases of horses.

Horses are not humans. But you'd think he'd have heard of the Bellevue experiment, right? I mean...biochemistry! Nope. We had a nice conversation about it last summer, while we were weeding our respective gardens. He thought it as interesting as I had.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 16:00
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,744
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

I've been reading about all of the Arctic explorers' land-based excursions, and the journals of the British officers like Franklin express alarm at the uncouth behaviour of the Indians and Inuit when they kill a deer or caribou after several days without food - they dove face first into the stomach contents and ate them raw. Of course this would contain the undigested grass and whatever plants they had eaten, containing Vitamin C. They also report that the voyageurs doing all of the paddling, portaging & heavy loaded work loved to eat fat, even bear fat.

Of course the successful Canadian and British explorers like Stefansson, Rae, Dease were successful because they "went native" and learned how to hunt.

Last edited by deirdra : Mon, Feb-15-16 at 16:12.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-16, 20:23
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,274
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
I've been reading about all of the Arctic explorers' land-based excursions, and the journals of the British officers like Franklin express alarm at the uncouth behaviour of the Indians and Inuit when they kill a deer or caribou after several days without food - they dove face first into the stomach contents and ate them raw. Of course this would contain the undigested grass and whatever plants they had eaten, containing Vitamin C. They also report that the voyageurs doing all of the paddling, portaging & heavy loaded work loved to eat fat, even bear fat.

Of course the successful Canadian and British explorers like Stefansson, Rae, Dease were successful because they "went native" and learned how to hunt.

That's another point of contention. I mean, whether it's true or not. One side says they did exactly as reported, while the other side says it's a prank cuz it's literally disgusting, inedible, unpalatable. Imagine throwing up. That's the taste of stomach contents. I'm pretty sure the natives knew what it tastes like, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have liked it either, and I'm also pretty sure they had a good sense of humor. So, is it a prank at the expense of ignorant tourists, is it some invention to support the vitamin C argument? Probably both. Raw meat cures scurvy.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Tue, Feb-16-16, 08:27
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,567
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

I don't think the stomach contents would so closely resemble ours, there's a big difference in our digestive processes. I'm willing to cede that some of the Inuit did eat this.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cf...articles_id=653

Quote:
Another method for “cooking” foods was done directly by the animal. The stomach contents of caribou contain lichen and plant material, which in a fresh state is toxic to humans.

“These naturally fermented foods came from the stomachs of freshly killed moose and caribou, or from ptarmigan intestines,” says Sparks. “With a slightly sweet, earthy taste, they were a hunter’s reward, and very welcome.”

Raw meat, which had not been frozen, could cause stomach problems, so hunters would “cook” meat through chemical alteration inside the warm caribou stomach, or rumen, immediately after harvest. They didn’t have camp stoves, seal oil lamps didn’t travel with them, and even a quick fire was often impossible on the treeless tundra. The stomach acid, warm temperature, and partially digested lichen would “cook” the caribou meat on the spot and create a necessary, nutritious, and tasty meal.


But obviously by calorie, the stomach contents will have been a small portion of what an animal had to offer. And I've never seen anything suggesting that the explorers who followed the Inuit's lead went so far as eating from the stomach.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Tue, Feb-16-16, 09:22
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,274
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Teaser, I read a little bit of that article and I find too many things that are obviously wrong. For example:
Quote:
The centuries-old Inupiaq custom of storing caribou with the hide on helps both preserve the meat and create a traditional delicacy, with the hide acting like “super butcher paper” if you will, minimizing “freezer burn” while retaining more moisture in the meat.

That's a contradiction. Moist muscle meat won't store, because of the moisture. Take out the moisture, it can then be stored for years, especially when sealed with rendered fat, where the moisture there has also been removed. I think water is the key for long-term storage of meat, but when you think about it, it applies to basically everything, from metals to fabrics.

As for eating stomach contents for supposed nutritional value, I just killed a 800lbs animal with 100lbs of fat on its back, but most especially an adrenal gland with all the vitamin C that me and my entire family would ever need for a long time (consumed immediately, of course), until the next 800lbs animal I kill. It's a myth and it keeps going for reasons that sound good but fail to pass the test when we dig just a little bit deeper.

Here's an idea. Inuit tribes talk to each other. What one tribe knows, all other tribes know. Also, they talk to other tribes across the continent so for example, if one figured out how to make pemmican to preserve meat for years, this obviously essential knowledge would quickly pass on to every other tribe on the continent, and supercede basically every other inferior methods for long-term storage. So, we get caribou pemmican, fish pemmican, buffalo pemmican, pemmican made with basically every large game species they hunt. It's the same for adrenals and vitamin C, they couldn't know about vitamin C, but they sure knew about the cause-effect relationship. With the same context, let's make the same argument for eating the stomach contents of a freshly killed large game animal.

Here's another idea. Inuits were obviously not dumb. I mean, if we think they were just smart enough to survive the extremely harsh conditions, let's see what smart European tourists did in those same harsh conditions. Oops, they all died of some stupid thing or other. So, those smart European tourists were just not smart enough, not as smart as the dumb Inuits. So who wrote all these texts about what the Inuits did to survive the harsh conditions? If it's the dumb European tourists who all died of some stupid thing, how could they even begin to write about it with any accuracy? In the grand scheme of things, I'm going to favor the writings of somebody who went there, stayed there for years, adopted all the local customs therefore abandoned all his previous customs, and lived to tell the story. In the Bellevue all-meat experiment, the subjects didn't eat the stomach contents of anything, not even once. Where does this idea come from, that they ate the stomach contents of a freshly killed caribou, that it had a sweet appealing taste of any kind? Certainly not from somebody who actually did it. Maybe from somebody who saw somebody else do it, but I doubt it. I haven't read anything that describes this in unambiguous terms, i.e. "I saw him to it, I did it myself", it's all "they say, they talk about it, it is said that, I heard about it, etc". We could keep the myth going, or somebody just try it for himself, go out and kill a caribou, cut out the stomach and eat it right there on the spot, then write about his experience.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Tue, Feb-16-16, 09:43
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,274
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Put yourself in their shoes. What would you talk about if you met somebody from another tribe once or twice a year? The weather, a pretty flower you just saw a few miles back, a joke you heard two months ago that was so hilarious you just gotta share it with your distant cousin? How about this one. Hey cousin, I just met some European tourists and they asked me how I could ever survive here. So I told them I ate the stomach contents of a freshly killed caribou, and they went right in and tried it for themselves. Oh what fun we had, you shoulda seen their faces. How bout you, anything new? Yeah, we figured out how to preserve meat for years, you just cut it up, dry it, render the fat, mix together in the animal's skin like a big bag, seal up the seams with the fat, put it in a cool dry place for storage, eat it like that or boiled or something. A piece is pretty light (up to 90lbs), you can carry it on your back, gives you food for a couple months. Well, next year, everybody knows the joke, and everybody knows how to preserve meat for years. They don't need the joke to survive, but it keeps going cuz it's soo hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Tue, Feb-16-16, 10:18
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,970
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
In the Bellevue all-meat experiment, the subjects didn't eat the stomach contents of anything, not even once. Where does this idea come from, that they ate the stomach contents of a freshly killed caribou, that it had a sweet appealing taste of any kind?

Yes, many contradictions, and the Bellevue experiment primarily fat, meat and very little organ meat. A telling paragraph from Stefansson's autobiography:
Quote:
I had forecast that we would be getting more than half our calories from fat. Most of us were surprised at the final computation, which was that about 80% of the calories came from fat and 20% from lean. The daily intake varied between 2600 and 2800 calories. There was, of course, no carbohydrate except what is normally contained in whole meat, perhaps 50 calories per day. If it is true that liver is higher in carbohydrates than are other meats, I repeat that we seldom ate liver. Some of the committee urged liver upon us, while others suggested that we avoid it. We probably ate no other organs except perhaps an occasional kidney. We were permitted to eat brains, and once, for a special reason that I will mention presently, I consumed a considerable amount of brains fried in bacon grease.

Stefansson and Andersen lived on a meat and water only diet for approximately 12 months and experienced no ill effects with the exception that Andersen contracted pneumonia during a short period; however, it was observed as a milder case compared to others at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Tue, Feb-16-16, 10:19
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,567
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
The centuries-old Inupiaq custom of storing caribou with the hide on helps both preserve the meat and create a traditional delicacy, with the hide acting like “super butcher paper” if you will, minimizing “freezer burn” while retaining more moisture in the meat.


This isn't really a contradiction, just a different way of preserving meat. People in warmer climes were dependent on drying meat out for preservation, the Inuit had a ready-made freezer in the environment.

I'm not saying that the Inuit needed to eat the stomach contents. I could see an acute need causing people to try foods they otherwise wouldn't. I don't think blue cheese is a necessary foodstuff--but you could see cheese going "bad" in this way, and due to necessity/food shortages, somebody ends up trying it, and finds that it's an acquirable taste.

There's nothing unbelievable about people eating stomach contents of the caribou, to me. Or bird's nest soup. Or natto. I might not line up for some anytime soon, but people eat all kinds of stuff that sounds weird to our cultural palate.

Quote:
If it's the dumb European tourists who all died of some stupid thing, how could they even begin to write about it with any accuracy? In the grand scheme of things, I'm going to favor the writings of somebody who went there, stayed there for years, adopted all the local customs therefore abandoned all his previous customs, and lived to tell the story. In the Bellevue all-meat experiment, the subjects didn't eat the stomach contents of anything, not even once. Where does this idea come from, that they ate the stomach contents of a freshly killed caribou, that it had a sweet appealing taste of any kind? Certainly not from somebody who actually did it.


The peoples we call the Inuit are not a homogenous group. Steffanson ate with some Inuit. He didn't travel across the land, eating in every northern village from Alaska to Greenland. Steffanson is evidence that eating the stomach contents wasn't necessary for the avoidance of scurvy--but he's not proof that the practice didn't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Tue, Feb-16-16, 10:21
Nicekitty's Avatar
Nicekitty Nicekitty is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 463
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 150/139/132 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 61%
Location: PNW
Default

I wouldn't be so quick to discount this. One of the things I feed my dog is lamb tripe (stomach tissue and contents). It smells gross, but he absolutely loves it! It is considered to be very nutritious, and also a good source of enzymes. We've really gotten very "soft" with what we consider edible--most of us won't even eat organ meats, which were once considered delicacies. It's really important to eat as much of the animal as you can, if that is your only sustenance.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:51.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.