Fish is variable in fat content - mackerel has about 60% of its calories from fat, wild salmon 40%, herring 52%

k.a.breault@gmail.comDecember 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM
I don't particularly care for meat, but I want to try this. Is fish acceptable?

Reply
Replies

L. Amber Wilcox-O'HearnDecember 30, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Fish is good, but it is probably too low in fat all by itself. You could add bacon drippings. For that matter, what about fish and bacon? You could also trying adding butter or cococut oil, or supplement with fish oil.

Do you like shellfish? They are very nutrient dense. Some people are intolerant or allergic, though.

I'd be interested to see how it goes!


k.a.breault@gmail.comDecember 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM
I love sardines/kippers. The brand I usually eat have 8g of fat and 11g of protein per serving. I'll eat bacon every morning with eggs. I like salmon cooked in coconut oil. I can tolerate steak. I like chicken and even liver cooked in bacon. Stew beef has always been a favorite...I'll let you know...this page has been very helpful...thanks!


PhilTJanuary 6, 2014 at 3:20 AM
Fish is variable in fat content - mackerel has about 60% of its calories from fat, wild salmon 40%, herring 52% etc etc. So picking the right fish species can give you as good a fat/protein balance as the right cut of meat.

http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.html

Cashew nuts are very high in omega 6: Avoid

1. Cashew nuts are not nuts, they are legumes. Hence, they are not paleo.

2. In the above table, note that cashews are very high in omega 6. They could cause imbalance in omega 6: omega 3 ratio,

3. Ideal omega 6: omega 3 ratio is about 2 or less. However, cashews have the highest ratio at 125.

4. All other nuts also have high omega 6 : 3 ratio

5. Walnuts, although they have reasonable omega 6: 3 ratio, the absolute amount of omega 6 is very high

6. Both omega 6 and omega 3 are polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs)



Source: http://www.paleoflip.com/nuts-which-ones-to-eat-and-which-ones-to-avoid/

Vegetable fats vs Animal Fats.. Vegetable fats are bad, animal fat is good. Vegetable fats have become popular only since 1970s.

Below are the highlights of interview with Jennifer McLagan, author of the boo "Fat:An Appreciation of a Misunderstood Ingredient, with recipes"

There is a huge movement about consumption of fatty foods over the past 30 years in the US.

1. Eating less fat hasn't made us healthier or thinner.

2. We have reduced 'animal fat' we eat. But statistics show that the total amount of fat in our diet has increased.

3. Vegetables fats have replaced animal fats. This has led to huge increase in polyunsaturated fat in our diet (which can depress our immune system).

4. Eating fat-free foods results in us eating more carbohydrates and sugars. These don't satisfy hunger. Animal fat does satisfy our hunger, hence we eat less.

5. Food is relatively cheap, we spend less than 10% of our income on food. So, we don't value it.

6. Many see food as a fuel or medicine, not as a pleasure.

7. There is a widespread myth that making food from scratch takes time and is expensive. It may not always be quicker, but it is better for you and cheaper when all costs are considered.

8. If we cooked our food, sat with friends and family, and enjoyed eating it, we would be healthier and happier.

The French appear to have positive relationship with fat while north Americans do not. Why?

1. Many cultures, including the French have a positive relationship with food, which flows to fat.

They see food as something to enjoy and celebrate and treat it with respect. In America, we lack food culture. However, many cultures are threatened today as they adopt American habits, fast food and industrial food. Even France is not immune to this dominant American culture, there is problem of obesity among the younger generation.

How did animal fat which was so popular in the 20th century lose out to Crisco (vegetable oil brand of P&G)?

1. Crisco and other vegetable fats did not do well at first.

2. True, they were cheaper and popular with food manufacturers.

3. But people still preferred lard, suet, poultry fat and batter to cook with.

4. The vegetable fats were 'aggressively' promoted.

5. It wasn't until 1970s when animal fats were labelled "greasy killer" and were told to lower our consumption. That's vegetable fats became "healthy fats" and their sales took-off.

So, how exactly is cooking with animal fat better for us?

1. Unlike vegetable oils, animal fats are very stable and don't turn rancid easily. This makes animal fats ideal for cooking, which involves heating.

2. Animal fats have no trans-fats.

3. It is much easier to roast a bird or a joint, if it has a good quantity of fat. Without it meat will be dry and tasteless.

4. Animal fats have essential fatty acids, which help fight disease and help absorb vitamins.

5. Many of us have skewed ratio of essential fatty acids due to too much vegetable oils. When the ratio goes out of balance, we have illness and depression.

How does cooking in animal fat affect the taste of food?

1. Fat carries flavor.

2. Fat in meat or bird keeps it moist and juicy. You can' replace it with vegetable oils.

3. Animal fats are better suited for cooking as they are more stable and resist heat better than vegetable oils.

4. By cooking the meat in the same fat, you can layer the flavor into the dish - lamb in lamb fat, beef in beef fat, chicken in chicken fat and so on.

What about transfats?

1. Trans-fats or man-made fats are often hydrogenated to extend shelf life.

2. This type of fats are difficult for body to digest and are universally condemned.


http://www.salon.com/2008/09/25/jennifer_mclagan/

100 grams - lamb tallow has 900 calories (45% of Daily recommended number of calories)

Source: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/581/2

Evolution - Are humans carnivores or omnivores?

‎Austin‎ to Principia Carnivora

7 hrs · Ann Arbor, MI, United States · 

Wandering the internet, Google-ing various questions I always have...

Came upon this. And usually I wouldn't entertain something as opinionated as Quara, but I finished reading her explanation and thought, "that makes sense".

Thoughts?

"Humans are not carnivores, but omnivores. We do not have the gut structure that a carnivore, such as cat has. Our digestive juices are not the same as carnivores'. Carnivores can actually digest bones up to a certain extent. We did not evolve from carnivores, but from apes. So it's not like we had the capacity to eat raw meat and then we "devolved" it. No ape is a strict carnivore. Most apes are frugivores or herbivores. Even for chimps, who eat meat fairly regularly, meat is a very small portion of their diet, and when they eat meat, they eat it fresh. We can digest raw meat (think steak tartare), but we get less nutrients from raw than cooked meats. Cooking food in general, not only meats, make them more digestible and more calories can be extracted from cooked food.

Raw meat can make people ill if the meat is contaminated with bacteria. If we were to kill an animal and immediately consume its flesh without storing it, we would not get sick. But in modern meat processing plants, the meat can become contaminated with fecal matter from the hapless animal; the same goes with eggs from factory farms. So it is best to cook meat and eggs, rather than eating them raw, not just for digestibility but also to kill the bacteria. Carnivores tolerate eating more bacteria than us because of the amounts of acid their stomachs contain, about 10 times higher than those of a non-carnivore. Their shorter guts also make for quick passage of the food so there is no time for rotting.

In other words, we did not evolve the capacity to eat cooked foods. We evolved as omnivores, not carnivores. And once we hit on the fact that cooking foods makes us able to extract more calories and kill bacteria, we stuck with it."

Are human stomachs better able to digest cooked meat than raw meat? If yes, why did we evolve this way?

Answer (1 of 22): Humans are not carnivores, but omnivores. We do not have the gut structure that a carnivore, such as cat has. Our digestive juices are not the…

WWW.QUORA.COM

Like

Like

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

CommentShare

Comments

Andrew Pridmore You only have to try raw vs cooked to know raw digests better and makes you feel better. As for raw meat making you sick if it's contaminated with bacteria, ALL foods contaminated with bacteria will make you sick. Mostly it's plants that have this contamination. Personally I've never had any problems with standard store bought raw beef mince. Beef and lamb are difficult to factory farm so the quality tends to be better. Chicken and pork I wouldn't eat raw, the care standards are generally very poor.

Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Russell Bentley Wonder what the 'bear' would say about this...

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Eira Ylva OK, debunked this before, but will do it again. 

Yes, humans have evolved from apes... But we did not consume bone often. Want to know why? 

Human diet in evolutionary terms: started eating plantation (strange miniaturised David Cameron looking creature), then began eating insects.... Then scavenging eggs & meat from other animals... Then the real hunting & fishing began, but we just never evolved to eat huge quantities of bone. We can eat bone, I have done, but of course it's not very comfortable to pass out. Like dogs, it has a constipating effect. Bones do contain nutrition, but we cannot access it in larger bones. We are not canids or felines who's teeth are HUGE & even they have problems eating large amounts of bone.
Humans do however have a pretty impressive bite force. 
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/.../who-are-you.../...

We can eat bones just fine. Don't believe me? Go and try & eat a raw lamb bone. It's hard work, not easy & it's not supposed to be easy either. Bones are the back end of a carcass. Also it will make your stools hard due to the calcium just like dairy does. The question is, why would you want to with unlimited access to actual meat? 

Instead our ancestors came up with cooking methods to extract nutrients from carcasses. I say carcass because we eat the entire animal naturally, not just the muscle meat & fat. 

Another imposter on human evolution was the domestic dog that improved our hunting capabilities & which was specialised to eat the bones so humans didn't have to. 

Our ancestors had large teeth though & large jaws... I easily believe that they just ate whatever they could chew or crush into pieces. 

The bacteria... Humans have a lot in the mouth which actually leads to a high chance of infection from a human bite. The gut is another matter. I cannot think of a fellow ZCarber who ate a 100% animal diet who has been sick with a serious stomach virus. Not one. 
I do however, know a lot of SUK dieters who are sick almost weekly. 

I'm sure Gregg or someone will bring the major science in to you. :) 

I'm on my mobile & a response is too much to type!

Lamb is a land salmon? - Lamb meat has best omega 6 to 3 ratio among land animals commonly eaten

1. Modern diets tend to be high in omega 6 fatty acids. 

High omega 6 levels in diet can lead to inflammation of tissues and other health problems. Many nuts, rains and vegetable oils are high in omega 6.

2. Modern diets are commonly low in omega 3 fatty acids.

Omega 3 fatty acids tend to be anti-inflammatory. The omega 3's are thought to be helping avoid a wide range of diseases like cancer, asthma, depression, cardiovascular disease, ADHD and autoimmune diseases such as arthritis.

Salmon and other "fatty fishes" are known for their high omega 3 fatty acid content and are promoted as a means of balancing omega 6 to 3 ratio in our diets.

3. Both omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids are important for human health. 

The preferred ratio is considered to be between 2:1 to 4:1. However, the ratio can be 16:1 in American fast food diets prepared with vegetable oils.

4. Lamb has the healthiest omega 6 to 3 ratio. 

Lamb has the best omega 6 to 3 ratio of about 3:1 compared to other commonly eaten land animals. None of the listed animals including lamb comes close to providing omega 3 as high as Salmon.

The ratio of omega 6 to 3 taken from http://nutritiondata.self.com



My notes: 

1. Pork and Chicken have extremely high omega 6 to 3 ratio compared to lamb.

2. Salmon has significantly higher omega 3 compared to omega 6. But if the preferred ratio for omega 6 to 3 is between 2:1 to 4:1, then is lamb a better long-term food choice than salmon for someone who's already following a low-omega 6 diet by giving up on vegetable oils, grains and nuts?


Technical note: Under US federal regulations, only the term 'lamb' is used for any ovine animal ('ovine' means any animal resembling sheep), whether male or female (Source: wikipedia). In the context of this article, lamb, sheep, goat, mutton seem to be interchangably used.


The above article was written by Janet McNally on March 1, 2015 in Graze, a magazine on grazing. 
http://www.grazeonline.com/landsalmon

Health Summary

Traditional medicine focuses attention on symptoms.

You have heart disease, then take a blood thinner or put a stent or take cholestrol-reducing medicine.

You have diabetes, then take insulin.

You have cancer, kill the cancerous cells. Chemotheraphy, surgical operation, medicines.

You have thyroid disease, then take thyroid supplement.

You blood pressure, take blood pressure reducing medicine.

You have pain anywhere in the body, then take ant-inflammatory medicines.

You have an infection, take anti-biotics.

You have psychiatric problem, then take anti-psychotic medicines.

You have eye sight, then put spectacles.