Modern “Carnivore Diet” is Not Ancestral

science

(Bunny) #1

I was watching Dr. Shawn Baker interviews and I am seeing things that are being misunderstood, (not that it really matters) in what is currently called “carnivore diet” is actually neo-new type thing in which I will proceed to explain why?

There is no difference between the ancestral eating of meat and the modern day vegetarian or pescatarian…

That may not make sense at the moment but makes more sense if you really think about it?

When we eat animals what is being misunderstood is the difference between livestock under direct human control that are mostly fed carbs and wild animals, and the type of fat the animal contains?

What ever the animal is eating; your also eating, if the animal is eating carbs like corn and very specific man made processed grains, not wild plants, bugs and critters etc; changes the fat composition of the animal to saturated fat rather than polyunsaturated fat?

  1. Corn/Grain (carbs) fed animals you get more saturated fat in percent.

  2. Wild Animals eat a variety of plants (including veggies, fruits, bugs, other animals, fish, critters etc.) and other things so you get more polyunsaturated fats in percent.

Modern day vegetarians/pescatarians have more in common with the Inuit Eskimo than the modern day carnivores?

Does anyone have any science that says otherwise?


(Running from stupidity) #2

There’s your first mistake.


(bulkbiker) #3

You are making a fair few assumptions there and are basing all your logic on US food production techniques.
I’m not so completely sure that what a cow eats will have such an impact on the composition of the beef that is produced from it, especially if (as most cows would be here in the UK) it has been mainly grass fed all its life and then maybe gets grain for fattening pre slaughter?
How quickly are you claiming the fat transformation takes (assuming it does at all?)
Do you have some supporting evidence for your statements?


(Bunny) #4

Fat composition?

For example: a wild hog vs. a caged hog?


(bulkbiker) #5

Yes
This study for example shows pretty limited differences in saturated fat composition and it seems to depend more on the breed of cow


(Bunny) #6

Interesting?

Hard to find any information on the composition of human body fat? What is it in percents of polyunsaturated, monounsaturated or saturated fat?

Could it be that human body fat (white adipose tissue or WAT) is more of a saturated fat in % and is that the reason it is so hard to burn it off when we go into ketosis?

Saturated fat is much more difficult to oxidize (need lots of heat {UCP-1} or IGF-1 {breaks fat down into ketones}?) when you cook with it?

Notes:

[1] Abdominal fat accumulation prevented by unsaturated fat


#7

Same way here in the US, much cheaper to grow grasses than to buy feed when they don’t have to, it’s the end of the line where it all goes to hell. But I’m with you on the skepticism on how bad it supposedly changes in such a small amount of time. I have issues believing a couple months vs years of being grass fed has THAT much of an effect. I’m not anti grass finishing, I believe there’s some truths to the good side of that, but I also think a lot of it is marketing.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #8

@lfod14 and @MarkGossage I am intrigued by this thread. The fact that all cows start as grass fed gives them all an equal start. But to get the volume of meat from a grass fed cow that a grain finished cow produces takes months more time. Grain finished beef puts on a huge amount of bulk during the grain fed period. Grass fed cows are much leaner.

So the fat produced during the grain feeding will be much of the fat that cow has. It will reflect what the diet of the animal was. Think of it like you lived a healthy lifestyle until you turned 18 and then went out on your own and ate at McDonalds every day for two years, eating as much as you could stuff down of the worst most unhealthy choices available during which your body weight increased by 40%. Do you think that a cow is more immune to eating a high carb diet than we are? It’s not a natural food for them anymore than it is for us. We consume these animals after they have been forced to adopt a lifestyle that’s destroying their health. We are eating the meat of obese cows. It must have some consequences. I eat both varieties but get grass fed when it’s reasonable and fits my budget. Fatter is not necessarily better in this case. :cowboy_hat_face::cut_of_meat:


(bulkbiker) #9

But if you look at Waggyu…grain and beer fed and reputed to be the best beef ever…
As most butchers seem intent of trimming off any excess fat then how much of that extra weight ends up on the table. The differences in that study seemed to be only 1 or 2g per 100g of SF so not a whole lot of difference. I simply don’t know but I’m still kind of waiting for @atomicspacebunny to provide any evidence of the initial claims in the opening post…


(Ken) #10

I suggest you read Cordains “Cereal Grains, Humanity’s Double-Edged Sword”.

I always enjoy the term “Research Suggests”. A hallmark of agenda driven Pseudo-Science.

One study that shows only marginal, and arguably insignificant differences is hardly Science. More like marketing.


(John) #11

I believe most of the prey animals and plants we once ate when we lived in harmony with our environments have been hunted to extinction, or modified by domestication to where they don’t much resemble what hunter-gatherers ate. Not much aurochs or mammoth meat to be found in the supermarkets.


(Robert C) #12

Well, I think it could get much closer to ancestral than how it is probably mostly practiced now.
Since there is no formal definition of the diet - I think it makes sense to think ancestrally.
Specifically, if you are on the Carnivore diet now and eat “only foods that either walked, swam, or flew” then, how would you “improve” your diet?
With keto, that is easy, there are lots of books and resources.

With already loosely defined Carnivore - steps toward being more similar to ancestral eating might be a good idea.

  • Eating too much muscle meat - move more toward nose-to-tail
  • Eating a bunch of boneless steaks - buy a a whole chicken
  • Eating cows fattened with grain and shot up with hormones and antibiotics - go grass fed from a reputable source that promises none of that

Our ancestors may have been pretty much completely carnivore during months when there was snow on the ground, I am pretty sure they would not have thrown away anything.

On the “go grass fed”, it seems to me that, if you are only worried about health and you were a billionaire - you’d buy grass fed (not necessarily if flavor was you highest priority). I think it comes down to cost for most health minded people but, I think there is a pretty big upside to grass fed, no hormone shots and no antibiotics raised cows.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #13

Wagyu may be the tastiest beef out there but taste doesn’t necessarily mean more healthy, as we carbaholics know.

I have never ever heard about Wagyu being more healthy, it just has mega marbling to make it tender.


#14

Your first mistake is assuming there’s a uniform definition of “Carnivore Diet,” when there isn’t, other than the general consensus of “animal-products only,” and even that it subject to strife.

There’s no one type of ancestral diet for my ethnicity, considering my ancestors were spread throughout Northern Europe (insert “cracker assortment” joke here), but I can generally gather that we probably ate more meat and dairy, and fewer fruits and vegetables, compared to warmer climates. I cannot perfectly replicate that - I cannot be out here hunting wild boar or even find affordable fish, shoot I can’t even get raw milk anywhere close by.

But I’ve always leaned animal-heavy in my diet, my OAS prohibits me from eating raw veggies, so I just do the best I can on Carnivore in hopes of feeling better, and for me that does mean eating nose-to-tail as much as I am able. I personally don’t understand the people who only eat ribeye steaks and nothing else, nor do I agree with them. But I also cannot eat the “perfect ancestral diet,” yet I won’t suddenly go out and eat all the veggies because of that limitation.


(KetoQ) #15

Lots of interesting points in this thread.

Not only that, but today’s livestock has been bred and cross-bred in very specific ways. The animal itself as well as its diet has changed.

That makes sense, but on the flip side, my question would be how does that kind of “lifestyle” affect the DNA of generations down the line?


(Robert C) #16

I would think it is the production method that counts.

Per the link below - “Wagyu” seems to just be defined as the lineage.

It does not (as far as I can tell) also specify how to fatten the cows (could be grains, beer etc. I think I have read that they even rub these animals - I guess to increase tenderness).

So, for example, I think a farmer that has a Wagyu beef cow that is showing the initial signs of being sick would have a decision to make. If the farmer knows a round of antibiotics will likely clear up the problem and the cow is worth a lot of money - it seems the farmer can (or even can always) inject antibiotics and still call the meat “Wagyu”.

So, I agree, only way Wagyu might be considered more healthy is if it helped you hit your keto marcros.


(Chris) #17

The best sushi chefs will massage octopus (I think postmortem) to decrease the rubberyness.


(The amazing autoimmune 🦄) #18

I don’t find any logic in the original post. Just because some one puts thoughts together doesn’t mean the logic follows. This is specious reasoning a la Ancel Keys.

Our beef is finished off corn fed so why not eat vegetables they are the same as our ancestral diet???:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

First of all as you pointed out the current vegetables ( in another post)Are very far away from the original plants. Our ancestors still ate significantly more meat than plants. Therefore no matter how you slice it(pun intended) meat is closer to our ancestral diet even though it too has been modified throughout the years( unless you are a hunter).


(Robert C) #19

I am not sure what “is closer to” means here.

In summer months, when fruit and vegetables were plentiful and the animals hadn’t fattened up much yet and (evolutionarily) you knew you wanted to fatten yourself for the coming snow-on-the ground months - I think a much more fruit and vegetable heavy diet may have been preferred.

Of course, there seems to be total consensus that eating meat was necessary for the evolving brain’s high demands but, that same brain would never have said “Oh, there is some easy to get food sitting on all of the trees and bushes - I’ll ignore all of that and take my chances trying to kill something with teeth and claws”.

PS - Good pun!


(Running from stupidity) #20

I really really really disagree with this characterisation, though.

Yup, anything can be argued over, and definitions like that ripe for the picking.

EXACTLY. It’s like the “well wheat is OK because it existed #whenever” except that TODAY’S WHEAT DIDN’T. And t was certainly processed differently (he said, considering pulling out a Jason Fung quote but deciding not to).

Nutrition’s Stalin!