Aaron (the other one) wrote:
>There's a lot of propaganda about meat and uric acid being overwhelming to
the
>kidneys, about the kidneys dumping the uric acid in the muscles, resulting
in
>rheumatism.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm eating fish, and buffalo, and raw
>eggs, so, I'm not here to preach against meat.  I'm just wondering what
>information contradicts this?


Dr. George Watson studied metabolic types, and hypothesized that some of the
incredible discrepancies he found between inidividuals was due to
differences in their rate of glycolysis (oxidation of glucose).  "Fast
oxidizers" burn sugar very quickly relatively to the rate at which they burn
fat and protein.  As a result, they need a relatively high-protein/fat,
low-carb diet in order to produce energy efficiently.  Fast oxidizers also
require a purine-rich diet; purines are most concentrated in dark meats,
especially organ meats.  Excess purines are converted to uric acid, but fast
oxidizers metabolize most of the purines they consume for energy, so their
uric acid level remains low, even when they eat a lot of meat.  People with
elevated levels of uric acid should probably restrict their meat
consumption.

I wish that I could report my own uric acid level, since I'm definitely a
fast oxidizer, but I haven't had a check-up recently.  No doctor has ever
told me that I have kidney problems, but a couple of alternative health
practitioners have independently reported that I have weak kidneys
(including a Chinese herbalist/acupuncturist).  It will be interesting to
find out what their diagnosis is the next time I seem them.

[...]
>assumptions (i.e. linking heart disease to meat, but failing to mention
that
>modern meat has 10X as much saturated fat as wild, lean meat, and much less
>Omega 3's, etc.).  That way, there could be a movement to make available
wild,
>lean meats, and to help figure out what the ideal percentage of meat or
animal
>products are (varies person to person), but if the Aborigines get 5% of
their
>diet, and the Eskimoes 95%, and neither have problems, one could save money
>and grow lots of their own veggies, and buy a little wild, lean meat, and
some
>raw eggs or go fishing, and do quite nicely.  Remember, Paleo didn't have
the
>grocery store for a steady supply of cow.

Ack, don't take away my saturated fat!  Seriously, I get agitated,
especially during the winter, if I don't eat enough saturated fat;
monounsaturated vegetable fats are nice, but they aren't a true substitute.
Isn't there evidence that hunter-gatherers sometimes kept the fatty portions
of a kill, and left the rest of the body behind?  If your environment forces
you to depend on meat (i.e., not many plant carbs are available), then
subsisting on lean meat is not an option.  Our ancestors may not have had
grocery stores, but that doesn't imply they were unable to acquire enough
meat through hunting.

I would argue further that many people have inherited the dietary needs of
such ancestors, and cannot fare well on a mostly vegetarian diet.  If the
Inuit do well on a meat-rich diet and the Aborigines do well on a meat-poor
diet, it tells you nothing about what *you* need.  Your implicit assumption
is that everyone has the same dietary requirements.  While I would agree
that we are more similar than we are different, the differences are
nonetheless significant.

Thank you for the interesting discussion,

-- Aaron Wieland