Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:42:00 +1100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 7:14 +1000 23/1/03, Phosphor wrote:
>>The reason is that modern beef (and lamb and pork and any >other farmed
>animal I've seen a nutrient profile of) contains >quantities of fats far in
>excess of those available to hunter->gatherers
>paleo man hunted animals in their right season, ie when they were at their
>fattest. animals need to fat to survive periods of poor forage. you should
>go away and actually do some reading on how they hunt according to these
>propitious times. then you will alleviate your ignorance.
Oh thank you for shedding a little enlightenment on my poor ignorant
mind great wise master.
So you are saying that when animals were out of season paleo man did
not hunt them and instead adopted a vegan diet. Somehow I find that a
little hard to believe.
I assert that paleo man hunted whenever they were hungry and made the
best use of whatever game they could bring down. Hence my interest in
the whole-of-carcass nutrient profile of game animals.
>>I have asserted that whole-of-carcass figures for paleo land
>>animals ranges from 2:3:2 to 3:2:1.
>can you tell which large land animal has the same amount of SFA as PUFA?
>this is way excess i think.
I'm sorry? Who said "large"? Oh, that was you trying to build a straw
man. Please read my post before replying. That will save yourself some
embarrassment and perhaps you will look a little less foolish.
You might like to do a little research and report back on the fat
profile of squirrel, opossum and other small mammals which are easily
hunted and trapped. While you're looking, perhaps you can find out the
fat profile of bear. Remember to include all organ meats which are much
less saturated than flesh and adipose fats.
>>Even allowing a large margin for error, it is evident that the fat
>>profile of a paleo diet was markedly different from the fat >profile of the
>huge slab of fat on a juicy steak.
>kidney fat is even *more* saturated than the subcutaneous fat. so how do you
>explain that away? you seem a little [or maybe greatly] ignorant of basic
>physiology: animals turn excess starches into SFAs. thats where they come
>from. wild and domestic animals.
You are assuming that wild animals eat and eat and eat until they are
as obese as domestic animals and modern humans.
Perhaps wild animals only eat as much as they need to survive and to
build some fat reserves for lean times, but stop eating while they
are still lean enough to escape predators.
Wild animals certainly don't have humans stuffing them full of grain
and eliminating their need (or ability) to exercise.
So, if they aren't consuming "excess starches" then they won't be
converting them to SFA and their carcass will be less saturated than
modern farmed animals.
>>Wild animals rarely contain fat greater than 10% of their body >weight, yet
>it is trivial to construct and adhere to a modern diet >with quantities of
>fat *way* in excess of that amount.
>so you can have mince with 10% fat?
>that would give a calorie balance of 1:1 fat/protein. seems good to me.
Assuming for a second that paleo man aimed for a balanced fat:protein
caloric ratio, by eating such mince you would be consuming
SFA:MUFA:PUFA in a ratio of about 10:10:1. If we also assume that paleo
man ate all the fat from a carcass, their intake would contain a much
higher ratio of polyunsaturated fats, as you will demonstrate when you
report back on the fat profile of a squirrel.
...R.
|
|
|