On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Aaron D. Wieland wrote:

> Aaron Sugarman wrote:
>
> >I am not sure, but our ancestors ate very lean meats, which I think was
> >MacDougall's point. [...]
>
> I'm not an authority on this subject either, but I think that you are only
> half right.  It is true that wild game tends to be much leaner than domestic
> livestock, but this doesn't imply that our ancestors ate a low-fat diet.
> First of all, it is necessary to understand that hunter-gatherers who lived
> in a cold or arid environment ate a low-carb diet.  It is possible to eat a
> diet which is low in fat or low in carbs, but not both.  Our ancestors
> prized the fattier portions of the animal, and favoured organ meats over
> muscle meat.  A few animals, such as ducks and geese, are naturally fatty.
> Bear grease, etc. could be mixed with dry meat.  If a lot of lean meat was
> available, but not much fat, then most of the meat was probably "wasted."

These issues are much debated on the Paleodiet list, but certain
things seem fairly clear.  As you say, our ancestors prized fat,
probably because it was indeed a more scarce commodity.  In
colder climates, animals acquire greater fat deposits before the
winter, which suggests that an abundance of saturated fat would
be only seasonally available, much as fruits would have been
seasonally available.  The fat that is available in marrow and
organ meats, which would have been available year-round, is
mainly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated, supposedly.  Organ
meats are a somewhat risky proposition today, since they tend to
accumulate toxins such as pesticides.

The truth seems to be that individuals vary considerably in their
ability to tolerate continuous high levels of saturated fats,
even on a very low-carb diet.  I don't think anyone has any idea
why this is so.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]