Re: fat content and composition of grass-fed vs. grain-fed (was: Coconut milk and meat)

[Guest guest]

>>On the issue of fat content of grass-fed vs. grain-fed, I think we should be

looking at what WAP's healthy primitives actually ate, NOT what was

available to them. Price reports that they specifically sought out older

animals with significant fat depots.

~~~I'd have a really hard time believing those primitive animals were fed corn

and soy. It's been proven that corn and soy fed animals don't have the same fat

content of grass fed animals. (Actually, that seems pretty obvious to me in a

logical way, as well, if you know anything about grains and health.) It's not a

matter so much of how 'much' fat as it is what 'kind' of fat. I am really

surprised this is even an issue here. I've looked at it as a proven fact for a

few years now. I would need 'black and white' proof to change my mind after all

the studying on this I've done. I'm just so sorry I don't have that

documentation to post. I don't have the heart to go on that 'crusade' all over

again.

>>Elsewhere he writes that in times of

abundance one native american tribe ate the fatty parts and discarded the

meat for the dogs. Throughout he reports on how they sought animal fat. So,

it's pretty clear, that regardless of an animal's fat content, when they had

the choice, healthy primitives choose fat, fat, fat.<<

~~~Yes, but the point is the fat content of the animals they were eating was not

'corrupted' by grains and soy. So, if we simply choose fat for the sake of fat,

we won't be getting the same nutrients they were getting. If the amount of fat

was the only important criteria, we'd all get healthy on potato chips!

>>I'm under the impression that Enig, VP of WAPF and a biochemist, checks

the articles for scientific accuracy. I could be wrong though.<<

~~~Well, grains are another thing I've looked into extensively, and which I'd

also have to see a lot more than just what someone has written with no

documentation on which to base their claims, before I'd change my mind.

(Doctorate or no, everyone makes mistakes.) I'm not about to start eating them

again anyway, because they have deleterious symptomatic effects on my body. (As

they do many people.)

>>I'm curious what other minor issues have you found to be incorrect?Suze

Fisher<<

~~~As I said, they were minor - mistakes in recipes, fermentation techniques

that clearly don't work, IMO, and other things I've read through the years by

her that I knew not to be true, that I can't remember off hand. Nothing,

obviously, that would make me quit reading what she writes, or I wouldn't have

recently purchased her book. (The grain thing kind of has me going, however.)

Just the fact that the second edition of her book was so vastly different from

the first edition, (in regard to fermenation), was disconcerting to me.

By the way, I'm sure there were even weeds that had grain-like structures in

primitive times, that were rarely eaten by the 'creative' individual, but it's

the sheer volume of grains people get today that is so damaging to health. And

to me, we're adding insult to injury, by feeding grains to the animals we eat as

well.

Carol

[Guest guest]

> Re: fat content and composition of grass-fed vs. grain-fed

>(was: Coconut milk and meat)

>

>

>

>>>On the issue of fat content of grass-fed vs. grain-fed, I think

>we should be

>looking at what WAP's healthy primitives actually ate, NOT what was

>available to them. Price reports that they specifically sought out older

>animals with significant fat depots.

>

>~~~I'd have a really hard time believing those primitive animals

>were fed corn and soy.

Carol,

For the record I never said anything about corn or soy feeding. I was

responding to the discussion on *total* fat content of grain-fed vs.

grass-fed. You had said that wild and/or grass-fed animals have less

*overall* fat. I was addressing THAT statement, not the issue of the makeup

of the animal's diet.

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>>For the record I never said anything about corn or soy feeding. I was

responding to the discussion on *total* fat content of grain-fed vs.

grass-fed. You had said that wild and/or grass-fed animals have less

*overall* fat. I was addressing THAT statement, not the issue of the makeup

of the animal's diet.Suze Fisher

<<

~~~You said all that mattered was that they ate the animals for the fat, fat,

fat. My point is that the fat animals they ate were not the same as the soy and

corn fed animals people are eating now. I think you totally missed my point.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Re: fat content and composition of grass-fed vs. grain-fed

>(was: Coconut milk and meat)

>

>

>

>

>

>>>For the record I never said anything about corn or soy feeding. I was

>responding to the discussion on *total* fat content of grain-fed vs.

>grass-fed. You had said that wild and/or grass-fed animals have less

>*overall* fat. I was addressing THAT statement, not the issue of the makeup

>of the animal's diet.Suze Fisher

><<

>

>~~~You said all that mattered was that they ate the animals for

>the fat, fat, fat. My point is that the fat animals they ate were

>not the same as the soy and corn fed animals people are eating

>now. I think you totally missed my point.

No, I didn't say that all that matters is the total fat content. I would be

contradicting my own beliefs had I said that. Rather, I said, in response to

your posts on grass-fed animals being lower in fat, that Price found that

healthy primitives sought out fat animals and focused on the fat rather than

the meat in times of abundance. I made absolutely NO commentary on the

*quality* of the fat. I was speaking ONLY of *quantity* and how the total

fat content of *available* wild animals doesn't tell us a whole lot about

the fat content *consumed*. My belief is that we should consume similar

quantities of high quality fat as WAP's primitives did, and not gauge our

fat requirements simply by the fat quantity in the typical grass-fed animal

(especially the young ones!)

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>>No, I didn't say that all that matters is the total fat content.

Suze Fisher<<

~~~When I said what I did about grains and soy fed animals, I was responding to

this comment in your post:

" So,

it's pretty clear, that regardless of an animal's fat content, when they had

the choice, healthy primitives choose fat, fat, fat. "

~~~I don't know how else to take that than the way I did. If that wasn't you

who said that, or if I misunderstood, I'm sorry. BUT, my comment fit was

appropos to the post.

Carol

[Guest guest]

> Re: fat content and composition of grass-fed vs. grain-fed

>(was: Coconut milk and meat)

>

>

>

>>>No, I didn't say that all that matters is the total fat content.

>Suze Fisher<<

>

>~~~When I said what I did about grains and soy fed animals, I was

>responding to this comment in your post:

> " So,

>it's pretty clear, that regardless of an animal's fat content,

>when they had

>the choice, healthy primitives choose fat, fat, fat. "

>

>~~~I don't know how else to take that than the way I did. If that

>wasn't you who said that, or if I misunderstood, I'm sorry. BUT,

>my comment fit was appropos to the post.

>Carol

>

Carol, I was discussing QUANTITY of an animal's fat content, NOT quality.

I've re-read that para a couple of times and think it's clear from the

context that I was referring to quantity, not quality, but I understand

thats sometimes there are misunderstandings in these discussions and this is

an apparent misunderstanding. No harm done.

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>>Carol, I was discussing QUANTITY of an animal's fat content, NOT quality.

I've re-read that para a couple of times and think it's clear from the

context that I was referring to quantity, not quality, but I understand

thats sometimes there are misunderstandings in these discussions and this is

an apparent misunderstanding. No harm done.

Suze Fisher<<

~~~I thoroughly understand that you were discussing quantity, not quality.

That's part of my point. You are saying that those primitives ate large

quantities of animal fat. I'm saying that, if those same primitives were eating

the same quantities, only it was grain-fed meat, they wouldn't be the healthy

creatures they were. That's the problem here, and it's been my point from the

beginning. Most of modern man is eating as much fat in the form of beef as

those primitives, but he is eating grain-fed animals instead of the quality

animals those primitives ate, and modern man does not get those same health

benefits from the grain-fed beef. My point is that we can't just eat lots of

animal fat the way the primitives did and expect the same result, because our

animals, for the most part, are totally different animanls, and not NEARLY so

healthy.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Someone made the comment that there is nothing to show that grass-fed beef

approximates the fat content of wild game. (I think it was .) Here is

at least one reference that says it is about the same.

" But the same study, published in the January issue of the European Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, reported that wild ruminants and grass-fed beef have an

omega-6/omega-3 fat ratio equivalent to that of wild meat, which also is a good

source of omega-3 fat. "

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020204.Watkins.omega3.nat.html

This is from a study done at Purdue by Cordain (I know that probably weakens the

case to many), and Watkins, however....:

" Conclusions: Literature comparisons showed tissue lipids of North American and

African ruminants were similar to pasture-fed cattle, but dissimilar to

grain-fed cattle. The lipid composition of wild ruminant tissues may serve as a

model for dietary lipid recommendations in treating and preventing chronic

disease. "

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020204.Watkins.paleo.html

Here's an article from the University of CA, showing that the omega 3 content of

grass-fed beef is 60% higher than that of grain fed beef. This one is good,

because it also shows other nutrients that are much higher in grass-fed beef

than grain-fed:

http://tinyurl.com/6d9nr

Carol