Re: Coconut milk and meat

December 4, 2004

>>Dr. Cordian's book got a pretty thumbs-down review from Sally on the WAP

website.

http://www.westonaprice.org/book_reviews/paleodiet.html

-Pratick<<

~~~I haven't read his book, but I just read Sally Fallon's review. I agree with

her on a lot of things, but although I hate to dispute her, she may be wrong

when she says grass-fed and wild animals have as much or more saturated fat than

grain fed animals. (I also disagree with her on early man having grains. She's

about the only person I've heard say that.) From everything I've read on actual

studies done, those animals do indeed have less saturated fat content than grain

fed animals. (And all you have to do is eat both versions and it's very

obvious.) Here's another article about that from the Journal of Animal Science,

where fatty acid content of grass-fed cows, compared to grain fed cows was

actually determined, showing less saturated fat for the grass-fed animals:

http://tinyurl.com/3rkry

Carol

December 4, 2004

>>And we just don't like black fuzzy avacados

in this house, even when they are going for the premium price of 76

cents a piece (expensive to get them in from Chile I guess!) My

carrots say CA. The romaine is brown (not very appetizing). But I can

get a different potato a day for at least 2 weeks!

Funny how different things can be so close to each other!

Catz-<<

~~~I thought you meant you couldn't even get those foods at all. But, on the

other hand, I don't have any trouble getting great avocados, and the romaine is

beautiful and crisp and so is everything else here. I'm not sure where it comes

from. Idaho IS the potato 'capitol' of North America, you know! :-)

Carol

December 4, 2004

I know...I know...I'm drowning in potatoes! ROFL! :-)

Catz

> Idaho IS the potato 'capitol' of North America, you

> know! :-)

>

> Carol

December 5, 2004

>~~~I don't know anything about Cordain slaughtering animals young, so I'm not

commenting on that. But, I really believe grass fed and wild animal meats are

more lean. That's one thing I don't like about them taste-wise. It's difficult

to find the figures on the fat content, however, I was able to find some

previously, (and have lost track of them again), but here's a quote from a

grass-fed beef grower:

I used to buy " grain finished beef " and now I get pure grass fed beef, tho the

beef is at least 3 years old (and usually more like 7). The beef are steers

raised for " show " so they aren't commercially viable. And I have bought one

grass

fed YOUNG beef. So I can make some kind of comparison.

The grain finished beef was MUCH fatter, mainly on the outside. About 2 " of fat,

all around, under the skin. This helps in hanging, because during hanging

sometimes mold grows, and they just toss it along with the fat (I don't know

what they normally do with it). The grass finished beef had ZERO fat under the

skin. There was, however, a fair bit in the rib steaks, around the ribs, and

around the kidneys. The steaks were not well marbelled by commercial standards:

the fat is in big chunks around the outside of the steak (and of course I don't

trim it off). Now if you want to be lean, you can trim the fat off an old grass

fed beef pretty easily, and the resulting steak is lean. But, there IS fat. What

they really mean is that the fat isn't so " marbelled " ... stuck in with the

muscle tissue.

The young beef had less fat, and also the muscle tissue was kind of " pink " vs.

" red " . The bones were thin and weak. And it was NOT more tender. The old 7-year

steer was FAR better, taste-wise, though the butcher warned us repeatedly not to

blame him because " of course " it would be tough.

I don't know the saturated fat content of my beef. I can say it tastes really

amazingly good, and that folk who did not like " red meat " have now become

converts. However, I now do not think " grass fed meat " is low fat ... it IS less

marbelled (at least, with Longhorn) but there is plenty of fat. There would be

more with a buffalo (that nice fat hump).

Heidi Jean

The trouble with the world is that the

stupid are cocksure and the

intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

December 5, 2004

Carol-

>~~~I haven't read his book, but I just read Sally Fallon's review. I

>agree with her on a lot of things, but although I hate to dispute her,

>she may be wrong when she says grass-fed and wild animals have as much or

>more saturated fat than grain fed animals.

If you look at the abundant data available on eatwild.com, you'll see that

the main macroscopic difference in the lipid profiles of grass-fed and

grain-fed ruminants is that grass-fed animals have a little more PUFA, and

the n3:n6 ratio is changed greatly to correct the extreme overabundance of

n6 relative to n3. Depending on the feed, grain-fed cows will also

sometimes have more saturated fat, but from what I've read, traditional and

wild ruminant breeds typically have very saturated depot fat. Cordain gets

some of his low-sat-fat numbers from extremities (mainly legs, I think),

where fat would naturally be much more unsaturated in order to handle

winter weather.

Maybe more to the point, grain-fed animals pack on fat very quickly. Think

of fat kids fed a diet of soda, sugary boxed cereal, bread, pasta and

desserts. They get fat fast. In fact, that's exactly the attraction to

meat producers -- by rapidly fattening their animals, they can turn over

their stock more quickly and make larger profits. That's why cows are

slaughtered as young as possible, typically, I think, in the 16-22 month

range. As soon as they reach a good size and stop gaining so quickly,

boom, onto the next batch of animals.

Traditionally, however, hunter-gatherers feeding on wild, grass-fed animals

preferred *older* animals for a variety of reasons, among them the fact

that ruminants in the wild haven't acquired heavy slabs of subcutaneous and

other depot fat until they're much older. So bison, which I read have a

lifespan on the order of 12-15 years, and cows, which I think I heard can

live to 20 years or so, wouldn't be considered ideal until they were at

*least* the 7 years old of Heidi's animal if not a lot older. By that time

they'd have a huge slab of back fat, and they'd have had time to

concentrate a lot of nutrition.

Speaking of nutrition concentration, did you know that a lot of people

recommend slaughtering grass-fed animals even earlier than grain-fed

animals? It's because it's not until the 18-month mark that grass-fed

animal fat starts turning yellow, and consumers generally prefer beef fat

to be white because they're accustomed to grain-fed crap. So all else

being equal, the younger the animal, the less nutritious it probably

is. (I imagine there's some point past which an animal isn't going to get

any more nutritious, and another point at which it starts getting less

nutritious as it gets feeble and decrepit, but in the wild those probably

aren't enormous concerns.)

The big visible differences in the fat of grass-fed and grain-fed animals

are in rate of deposition (grain-fed animals lay it down MUCH faster),

color (grass-fed animals have yellow fat once they're old enough to have

stored enough carotenes) and distribution (as well as having lots of

subcutaneous fat, unhealthy grain-fed animals have fat marbled through

their muscles, which admittedly is pleasing to the tongue, while grass-fed

animals mostly store their fat in discrete lumps

> (I also disagree with her on early man having grains. She's about the

> only person I've heard say that.)

Yeah, I'm with you on that one. It's very implausible for several

reasons. First, grains as we know them simply didn't *exist* more than

10,000 years ago, and even then, most modern grains didn't arrive on the

scene until much later. Second, the calorie density of grain predecessors

simply wouldn't have been close to adequate to provide more than a small

fraction of anyone's food needs. And third, grains are labor-intensive and

their preparation requires specialized knowledge. While it wouldn't

surprise me if some paleo people tried nibbling on seed heads at various

times (after all, we're a curious species, and we had to get the idea for

agriculture somehow) I can't see them being a significant part of our diet

until they'd been modified enough to be worthwhile.

Sally also says, IIRC, that a little grain-finishing is OK, basing this on

the fact that ruminants would naturally have eaten the seed heads of wild

grasses. I think she's wrong there too, again because modern grains and

their predecessors are so different from each other. The starch content of

grass seed heads is simply nothing like that of modern grains.

>Here's another article about that from the Journal of Animal Science,

>where fatty acid content of grass-fed cows, compared to grain fed cows was

>actually determined, showing less saturated fat for the grass-fed animals:

>http://tinyurl.com/3rkry

That's not very helpful for a few reasons. It doesn't provide numbers, it

doesn't mention slaughter ages, and it doesn't give details on the contents

of the various feeds.

-

December 5, 2004

>>But, there IS fat. What they really mean is that the fat isn't so " marbelled "

.... stuck in with the muscle tissue.

However, I now do not think " grass fed meat " is low fat ... it IS less marbelled

(at least, with Longhorn) but there is plenty of fat. There would be more with a

buffalo (that nice fat hump).

Heidi Jean<<

~~~No, I didn't mean to say it was low fat. It's lower in saturated fat than

grain-fed beef, but it contains more omega 3 than grain fed, which is simply a

different kind of fat, not low fat.

Carol

December 5, 2004

Pratick, thank you for expressing my opinion about this matter so much

better than I was able to convey it.

Deanna

> I am surprised that Dr. Mercola is giving a good review to the Paleo

> Diet book.

> I have read that book and disagree with almost all of it, except maybe

> his stand on

> sugars and grains (eliminating those).

>

> It sounds like Mercola is trying to grab onto anything he can find

> (other than his own

> website and books) that recommend the grass-fed meats that he sells

> through his website

> (ostrich, bison, etc.).

>

> Dr. Cordian's book got a pretty thumbs-down review from Sally on the

> WAP website.

> http://www.westonaprice.org/book_reviews/paleodiet.html

>

> In terms of pre-industrial diet, I love Ray Audette's Neanderthin.

> It is surprising that Dr. Cordian wrote the foreword for Ray's book,

> yet their ideas

> differ significantly.

> Ray is all for saturated fats and consuming them in heart-warming

> quantities without any

> fears, whereas Dr. Cordain adopts the politically-correct stance of

> saturated fats cause

> heart disease.

>

> Dr. Cordian also doesn't seem to have any clue about the dangers of

> hydrogenated trans

> fats, artificial sweetners, soda/pop etc.

>

> I am surprised that Dr. Mercola is recommending his book

>

> -Pratick

>

December 5, 2004

Carol-

>It DOES show what they were fed.

Tell me, then, what's in a " concentrate " ? As in the following:

>>The experimental rations offered daily for 85 d preceding slaughter were

>>1) grass silage for ad libitum intake plus 4 kg of concentrate, 2) 8 kg

>>of concentrate plus 1 kg of hay, 3) 6 kg of grazed grass DM plus 5 kg of

>>concentrate, 4) 12 kg of grazed grass DM plus 2.5 kg concentrate, or 5)

>>22 kg of grazed grass DM.

-

December 5, 2004

>http://tinyurl.com/3rkry

That's not very helpful for a few reasons. It doesn't provide numbers, it

doesn't mention slaughter ages, and it doesn't give details on the contents

of the various feeds.

-<<

~~~I only posted it as some form of documentation to support my claim that

grass-fed beef has less saturated fat than grain-fed beef, and it accomplished

that, so it was helpful to me. It DOES show what they were fed.

Carol

December 5, 2004

>>Tell me, then, what's in a " concentrate " ? As in the following:

>>The experimental rations offered daily for 85 d preceding slaughter were

>>1) grass silage for ad libitum intake plus 4 kg of concentrate, 2) 8 kg

>>of concentrate plus 1 kg of hay, 3) 6 kg of grazed grass DM plus 5 kg of

>>concentrate, 4) 12 kg of grazed grass DM plus 2.5 kg concentrate, or 5)

>>22 kg of grazed grass DM.<<

~~~Concentrate of grass silage.

Carol

-

December 5, 2004

Carol-

>~~~Concentrate of grass silage.

That sounds unlikely to me, but if so, consider the implications:

>>The experimental rations offered daily for 85 d preceding slaughter were

>>1) grass silage for ad libitum intake plus 4 kg of concentrate, 2) 8 kg

>>of concentrate plus 1 kg of hay, 3) 6 kg of grazed grass DM plus 5 kg of

>>concentrate, 4) 12 kg of grazed grass DM plus 2.5 kg concentrate, or 5)

>>22 kg of grazed grass DM. The concentration of polyunsaturated fatty

>>acids (PUFA) in i.m. fat was higher (P < .05) for steers offered ration 5

>>than for those given any other ration. Decreasing the proportion of

>>concentrate in the diet, which effectively increased grass intake,

With the exception of regimen #2, the only differences between the regimens

are in the amount of fresh grass versus " concentrated " grass sileage, and

the only exception is 1 kilo of hay, which is also a form of grass. IOW,

if you're right, the experiment completely fails to compare grass feeding

to grain feeding in any way whatsoever.

-

December 5, 2004

>>With the exception of regimen #2, the only differences between the regimens

are in the amount of fresh grass versus " concentrated " grass sileage, and

the only exception is 1 kilo of hay, which is also a form of grass. IOW,

if you're right, the experiment completely fails to compare grass feeding

to grain feeding in any way whatsoever.- <<

~~~Maybe you're correct about the article, I don't know. Although it appears to

be a good source and there are several other articles about the subject that may

tie into it. (I just found it a day or two ago.) But, that article doesn't

matter to me at this point. I convinced myself over 5 years ago, from lots of

other articles and research, that grass-fed beef is much healthier than

grain-fed beef and that there is much less saturated fat and much more omega 3

fat in grass-fed beef. (I don't eat commercial beef anymore.) I was also very

happy about the higher omega 3 level, because I don't have the fresh fish source

here than I had in Seattle. I have lost all the documentation that I spent

untold hours finding years ago, which was detailed and undeniable. I just don't

feel like going back over that same ground for the sake of a debate, which I

would have to do now to replace that article with something more acceptable to

you. It was more important for me to know the facts, probably, that for you to

know them, because I have MS, (and therefore don't metabolize saturated fat

correctly), and it's critical to my life, so I made sure I knew what to do. I

had to get that issue 'under my belt' and go onto a zillion other foods. I

rarely eat any kind of beef anymore, because I really didn't like the grass-fed

beef that was available to me - too lean and dry and actually too expensive. I

used to have the numbers in charts and articles, that you're looking for, but

regrettably I don't anymore, thanks to good old computer viruses.

Do you have any documentation for your claim that grass-fed beef is NOT lower in

saturated fat, and higher in omega 3 fat? I hope it's not what Sally Fallon has

to say, because I don't find her to be very reliable about some of these more

scientific food issues, given her view on grains.....and some other more minor

things I've noticed.

Carol

December 5, 2004

Carol-

>because I have MS, (and therefore don't metabolize saturated fat correctly),

I know nothing specific about MS, but it doesn't seem implausible to me

that the conventional wisdom about MS and saturated fat is much like the

conventional wisdom about diabetes and saturated fat, so at the very least,

it's an issue which might be worth looking into.

That said, it's easier to get lean grassfed beef than it is to get lean

grainfed beef, so that would certainly be useful to you.

>Do you have any documentation for your claim that grass-fed beef is NOT

>lower in saturated fat, and higher in omega 3 fat?

Respectively yes and I didn't say that. If you're not even going to

characterize my statements with the smallest degree of accuracy, I see no

point in further discussion.

-

December 5, 2004

> Re: Coconut milk and meat

>

>> (I also disagree with her on early man having grains. She's about the

>> only person I've heard say that.)

>

>Yeah, I'm with you on that one. It's very implausible for several

>reasons. First, grains as we know them simply didn't *exist* more than

>10,000 years ago,

Well, technically they did exist, they just weren't cultivated on a large

scale before then.

I have no idea what Sally's written about early man's consumption of grains,

but I think it's worth mentioning that there is some evidence that a small

amount of grains *may* have been consumed prior to the agricultural

revolution. Someone posted a study several years ago on this list or

beyondprice which described a tribe, in Africa I think, that raided ant

hills after the ants had collected grains. So they let the ants do the work.

I think it's worth considering that human ingenuity might've resulted in

some early practices that we currently don't think our ancestors were

capable of. Look at man for example. It was previously thought that

non Homo Sapiens Sapiens for instance, were incapable of boat travel.

Whoops...maybe they were. I'm not saying, if they had consumed grains, that

it was anywhere near the quantity consumed after the agricultural revolution

though.

Also, it's generally thought that humans didn't engage in agriculture until

about 10,000 years ago, but the Australian Aboriginies have been cultivating

tubers for about 40,000 years. Just a few things worth considering, IMO.

>Sally also says, IIRC, that a little grain-finishing is OK, basing this on

>the fact that ruminants would naturally have eaten the seed heads of wild

>grasses. I think she's wrong there too, again because modern grains and

>their predecessors are so different from each other. The starch

>content of

>grass seed heads is simply nothing like that of modern grains.

Sally is pretty adament that we need FAT and that fatty grain-fed meat may

be a better choice than low-fat grass-fed meat for that reason.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

December 5, 2004

>>I know nothing specific about MS, but it doesn't seem implausible to me

that the conventional wisdom about MS and saturated fat is much like the

conventional wisdom about diabetes and saturated fat, so at the very least,

it's an issue which might be worth looking into.<<

~~~I DO know alot about MS. I'm not talking about conventional wisdom. I'm

talking about very unconventional hypotheses of a doctor in Oregon and a PhD

in Canada, combined with autopsy evidence on the brains of MS victims. This is

an issue I've looked into for 10 years.

>>Respectively yes and I didn't say that. If you're not even going to

characterize my statements with the smallest degree of accuracy, I see no

point in further discussion.

-<<

~~~I thought that's what you were maintaining, if not I'm sorry! I don't know

what you're debating me about then, because those were the opposites of my

assertions that you seemed to be trying to refute.

Carol

December 5, 2004

> Re: Coconut milk and meat

>

>>Do you have any documentation for your claim that grass-fed beef is NOT

>>lower in saturated fat, and higher in omega 3 fat?

>

>Respectively yes and I didn't say that. If you're not even going to

>characterize my statements with the smallest degree of accuracy, I see no

>point in further discussion.

I don't recall exactly what said but I imagine he might've said that

the omega 6:3 ratio was lower in grass-fed. Although I don't think it's

*significantly* so, which I think he mentioned. I believe it's the fact that

bovines turn unsatured fats into saturated ones that makes the fatty acid

composition of their diet non reflective of their own fatty acid

composition.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

December 5, 2004

Suze-

>First, grains as we know them simply didn't *exist* more than

> >10,000 years ago,

>

>Well, technically they did exist, they just weren't cultivated on a large

>scale before then.

No, I disagree. Grains *as we know them* did not exist. You couldn't

wander through the wilderness and happen upon some modern wheat or corn or

oats or barley or anything else. The *ancestors* of modern grains did not

have the enormous starch content that modern grains do. Modern grains were

created by extensive modification of their ancestors. While the base

genomes might not have changed all that much (perhaps today's grains are

like today's dogs -- more different from wolves in appearance than in

genes) their physical natures are just as different as a chihuahua's is

from a timber wolf's, if not more.

>I have no idea what Sally's written about early man's consumption of grains,

>but I think it's worth mentioning that there is some evidence that a small

>amount of grains *may* have been consumed prior to the agricultural

>revolution. Someone posted a study several years ago on this list or

>beyondprice which described a tribe, in Africa I think, that raided ant

>hills after the ants had collected grains. So they let the ants do the work.

>I think it's worth considering that human ingenuity might've resulted in

>some early practices that we currently don't think our ancestors were

>capable of. Look at man for example. It was previously thought that

>non Homo Sapiens Sapiens for instance, were incapable of boat travel.

>Whoops...maybe they were. I'm not saying, if they had consumed grains, that

>it was anywhere near the quantity consumed after the agricultural revolution

>though.

It's not only possible, it's very likely, because what else would've given

man the impetus to farm grains in the first place? But the quantities, the

prevalence in the diet, were something else entirely.

>Also, it's generally thought that humans didn't engage in agriculture until

>about 10,000 years ago, but the Australian Aboriginies have been cultivating

>tubers for about 40,000 years. Just a few things worth considering, IMO.

True, but in general, from what I've been reading, the amount of time we've

been cultivating various grains has been revised downwards, not upwards.

-

December 5, 2004

Carol-

> ~~~I thought that's what you were maintaining, if not I'm sorry! I

> don't know what you're debating me about then, because those were the

> opposites of my assertions that you seemed to be trying to refute.

I was talking about n3s. As to saturated fat, no, I don't think grassfed

animals are meaningfully lower in saturated fat than grainfed

animals. What I've tried to explain is that the rate of fat deposition is

slower for grassfed animals, so *young* grassfed animals (i.e. the vast

majority of animals slaughtered in the US and elsewhere) are lower in

*overall* fat than grainfed animals, and that the distribution of fat

within the body is different, there being much, much less marbling in

grass-fed animals. Yes, grassfed animals have more n3 and less n6 than

grain-fed animals, but that's not in question AFAIK.

-

December 5, 2004

Suze-

>I don't recall exactly what said but I imagine he might've said that

>the omega 6:3 ratio was lower in grass-fed. Although I don't think it's

>*significantly* so, which I think he mentioned.

No, the n6:n3 ratio in grass-fed ruminants is very different from that in

grain-fed ruminants, but I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the

idea that grass-fed animal fat is dramatically less saturated than

grain-fed animal fat.

> I believe it's the fact that

>bovines turn unsatured fats into saturated ones that makes the fatty acid

>composition of their diet non reflective of their own fatty acid

>composition.

Quite so. AFAIK that's true of all ruminants.

-

December 5, 2004

> RE: Coconut milk and meat

>

>>I don't recall exactly what said but I imagine he might've said that

>>the omega 6:3 ratio was lower in grass-fed. Although I don't think it's

>>*significantly* so, which I think he mentioned.

>

>No, the n6:n3 ratio in grass-fed ruminants is very different from that in

>grain-fed ruminants, but I never disagreed with that. I disagreed

>with the

>idea that grass-fed animal fat is dramatically less saturated than

>grain-fed animal fat.

I'd read some information about the EFA ratios in grain vs. grass-fed

*ruminents* that indicated that the ratio is not *significantly* different

but IS different, but I don't recall the source now. By " not significant " , I

mean not like domestic poultry ratios that are approx. 20:1. It seems to me

that this is a hard thing to guage as most lipid profiles are of a specific

cut of meat or organ, NOT the *whole* animal. And the EFA ratio can differ a

LOT depending on what part of the animal we're talking about.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

December 5, 2004

I have read (it's been some time ago) that shortly after humans began to

cultivate grains they developed the diseases and problems we have today.

Diabetes, obesity, and so forth.

An anthropologist can tell by looking at ancient bones if the owner was a

hunter-gather or an agriculturist.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----