Below is a thread from the Paleolithic Eating Support List. I don't know
if it is only a shocker to me (since I have always considered Stefansson's
experiment to be support for RAF and here I find it was cooked). Dean is >
and I am "normal"...
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:14:12 -0600
Reply-To: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Diet Changes and Evolving Genes
To: [log in to unmask]
Dean, I appreciate your posts much and am surprised that you can find the
time to reference them as well. Not to pick nits, but your statement below
has been said and implied a few times previously, and I wonder....
Dean:
>The only form of food which has been shown to be nutritionally potent
>enough for humans to live off of it exclusively for long periods of time
>with no ill effects or nutritional deficiencies is meat. (5)
>5) Stefansson, Vilhjalmur. "Adventures In Diet." Harper's Monthly,
>December 1929, January 1930, February 1930.
But I am wary of listers seeing such statements and thinking they might
live healthfully on tenderloins, or even any fatty meat (as Troy seems to
say), alone. An obese person might lose plenty of weight on such a diet (as
they would fasting or on a frutarian diet) but if memory serves, even
Stefansson began to deteriorate on un-aged lean meat...
I am going on memory here, and probably memory of a summary of Stefansson's
experience at that, but my understanding was that he and the other members
of a "controlled" experiment ran into serious trouble on an all-meat diet
and only regained their robust health when organs were introduced into the
diet. Perhaps your (and others') use of the term "meat" is meant to include
any part of the animal, in which case such statements ring true, but I fear
that "meat" to most folks means muscle tissue. Further, I understood that
the meat and organs were eaten raw (and aged?) during the study. I am
hoping those more familiar with the actual articles/writings of Stefansson
can share the details and correct my memory if need be.
I am unaware that there are any listers here regularly eating raw organ
meats of the quality available many decades ago. While I have no problem
with "promoting" animal foods as important to many humans' health, I worry
that "man can live on meat alone" will be interpreted as a mono-diet of
burgers and steaks hot off the grill. I doubt anyone will come up with
research support for _that_. But who knows... ;)
Cheers,
Kirt
Dean replies:
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:17:18 -0400
Reply-To: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Dean Esmay <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Diet Changes and Evolving Genes
To: [log in to unmask]
Thank you for your kind words, Kirt. I enjoy reading your stuff as well.
(The Kirt/Dean Mutual Admiration Society is now officially formed!)
In the articles I quoted, Stefansson was quite clear in saying that in his
year-long experiment with his buddy, they were mostly eating regular chops
and steaks from standard cattle. Mostly they chose high-quality cuts,
which of course would mean they were fairly fatty. The two test subjects
were allowed to have the food cooked however they liked. One of them
preferred his very rare while the other preferred it fairly well done.
(Interestingly, one had his cholesterol go up slightly while the other did
not; I wonder if the rareness of the meat had anything to do with it?)
The only thing Stafansson described as causing illness was that during the
first week, the doctor in charge of the experiment asked him to eat only
very lean meat. Stafansson tried to beg off, since in the arctic he had
seen and experienced "rabbit sickness," a condition that came about during
times of lean, when the only thing to eat was starving caribou that had
very little fat left on them. The doctor suggested that he only wanted him
to try it for a week, whereas the descriptions of "rabbit sickness" made it
clear that it took weeks for the disease to hit. Stefansson agreed, but
was sick--weak, dizzy, nauseated--within days. The doctors fixed it by
feeding him lots of pork fat and fried brains, and soon he was fine. For
the rest of the year he was allowed to eat normal, standard, tender and
fatty cuts of meat.
Stafansson explained the sudden onslaught of illness by noting that when he
was in the arctic and they were stuck eating only lean caribou, they had
instinctively gone after every bit of fat they could, sucking the marrow,
the fat behind the eyeballs, knawing cartilage--basically doing everything
they could to suck every last bit of fat out that they possibly could.
Apparently this gave them enough fat to avoid getting too sick, whereas the
very lean cuts of meat the doctor was feeding him plunged him straight into
severe discomfort (discomfort that by its description looks very
suspiciously like what some Atkins dieters report experiencing when they
first enter ketosis; at times I wonder if the problem isn't the diet so
much as the amount of fat they're eating--or rather, not eating).
Stafansson did not discuss whether the meat was aged and did not put much
emphasis on organ meats (his descriptions of what he was eating during the
year-long experiment mentions only steaks and chops, with brains mentioned
only the one time in ddescribing the cure for his rabbit sickness),
although it's possible that there was more organ-eating going on than I'm
aware of (Ray Audette's read just about everything Stefansson ever wrote,
maybe he can tell us more?) Stefansson also did not discuss aging of the
meats. On the other hand he emphasizes repeatedly in his descriptions of
the all-meat diets he was eating in the arctic that they were eating
freshly-killed meat, and he even said he felt that fresh meat was necessary
to prevent scurvy. So I do not -think- aging of meat was a major component
in his experiments. But I could be wrong; I need to read more than I have.
The diet Stefansson and his buddy ate on their year-long experiment (the
results of which were published in the Journal of the AMA and a few other
scientific publication) showed that, even though they were allowed to eat
pretty much at whim and were not guided in any way in their choices except
that it had to be animal flesh, was that on a daily basis they were getting
about 70% of their calories from fat.
I wrote a letter to Stefansson's widow a few weeks ago asking her
permission to reprint some of his articles on the web. I still haven't
heard from her, unfortunately, and I don't know if the articles are still
under copyright or not. I keep thinking they probably aren't but feel I
ought to get her permission anyway.
I eat a little crow (included for completeness)...;)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:20:35 -0600
Reply-To: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Diet Changes and Evolving Genes
To: [log in to unmask]
Dean:
>In the articles I quoted, Stefansson was quite clear in saying that in his
>year-long experiment with his buddy, they were mostly eating regular chops
>and steaks from standard cattle. Mostly they chose high-quality cuts,
>which of course would mean they were fairly fatty. The two test subjects
>were allowed to have the food cooked however they liked. One of them
>preferred his very rare while the other preferred it fairly well done.
>(Interestingly, one had his cholesterol go up slightly while the other did
>not; I wonder if the rareness of the meat had anything to do with it?)
<snip>
Absolutely facinating! How did I ever think it was all-raw? I assume he was
eating raw when living "on the Eskimo" diet during his travels and
explorations.
Anyway, this is a big bombshell to me, that he was cooking it and not using
organs much if at all over the long-term. I'm taken aback, as they say ;)
Thanks for the detail and I hope you do get the articles on the web one day!
Could I crosspost your summary to the raw-food list?
Cheers,
Kirt
Whatcha al think?
|
