Eating The Whole Animal Back In The Days Containing Gluten And PUFA

[Stuart]

@ Westside pufas
Amazing amount of info. Thanks.
A couple of things. I was actually referring to eating brains as part of the whole animal, not that your brain needs dietary fat particularly.
I don't eat any of the stuff you mentioned in your concluding roundup of the many ways modern processed food loads us with unnatural amounts of pufas.
I actually feel a bit sluggish if I eat more than half an avocado . I read somewhere that you shouldn't feed them to dogs. Maybe there're hepatotoxic to canines too.
But as long as you eat the whole fish , oily tropical fish are O.K.? Mullet are very oily. But I really like the flavour. Don't need to though. I like crustaceans so much I'm happy to eat them as my main protein source (and cheese) for ever. How could you tire of crab and prawns? (no mayonnaise, honestly) I'm enjoying food so much more now that i don't slather olive oil onto it. How many oysters should you eat/wk to avoid overconsuming zinc?
Thanks again

 

[Westside PUFAs]

.

 

[cantstoppeating]

If you were being rational with your point of view, you'd be eating feces since it was present in and among the foods our ancestors ate and evolved with.

When was the last time you had your daily serving of bacteria-rich feces? After all, we gotta make sure to keep our gut bacteria happy.

Can't quite see how you get from consuming SBO's from a regular pinch of organic farm soil (which any keen gardener does inadvertently after all) and trying to consume a similar amount of fermentable fiber as breast fed babies get, to eating feces.
Why on earth would you need to eat poo? But if it rocks your boat, I won't stand in your way :)
What an odd thing to suggest.

To be rational you'd have to equate eating feces with a 'pinch of organic farm soil' and 'fermentable fiber'. Why not a pinch of feces? Walk into any farm and take a pinch of cow feces and while you're there, perhaps add some soil to it -- all perfectly 'organic' and gut-friendly.

 

[Stuart]

Canned corned beef. Salty gelatiny yum. Cheap and lasts for ever too. The money I save, I'll spend on lobster.

 

[Stuart]

To be rational you'd have to equate eating feces with a 'pinch of organic farm soil' and 'fermentable fiber'. Why not a pinch of feces? Walk into any farm and take a pinch of cow feces and while you're there, perhaps add some soil to it -- all perfectly 'organic' and gut-friendly.

You seem to have quite a thing for eating poop cantstoppeating. Pray tell

 

[cantstoppeating]

To be rational you'd have to equate eating feces with a 'pinch of organic farm soil' and 'fermentable fiber'. Why not a pinch of feces? Walk into any farm and take a pinch of cow feces and while you're there, perhaps add some soil to it -- all perfectly 'organic' and gut-friendly.

You seem to have quite a thing for eating poop cantstoppeating. Pray tell

Guess I ended your line of argument -- you can't arbitrarily pick and choose what part of evolution you want to follow: either you abide by the 'I eat what my ancestors ate because it's the healthiest' or 'I understand my body and eat according to its health'. If you're picking and choosing whatever you feel like, then you're on shaky ground and your points are made moot.

 

[jyb]

To be rational you'd have to equate eating feces with a 'pinch of organic farm soil' and 'fermentable fiber'. Why not a pinch of feces? Walk into any farm and take a pinch of cow feces and while you're there, perhaps add some soil to it -- all perfectly 'organic' and gut-friendly.

Why exaggerate? There is a difference between eating beef/milk (which have fermentable fibre)/carrot unbleached by chlorine (as in those from the grocery store) on one hand, and extreme exposure like feces transplant on the other. Even bacteria focussed authors like Art Ayers don't think the extreme solutions would add anything other than in some special situations. Same for probiotics pills.

 

[cantstoppeating]

To be rational you'd have to equate eating feces with a 'pinch of organic farm soil' and 'fermentable fiber'. Why not a pinch of feces? Walk into any farm and take a pinch of cow feces and while you're there, perhaps add some soil to it -- all perfectly 'organic' and gut-friendly.

Why exaggerate? There is a difference between eating beef/milk (which have fermentable fibre) and eating carrot unbleached by chlorine (as in those from the grocery store) on one hand, and extreme exposure like feces transplant on the other. Even bacteria focussed authors like Art Ayers don't think the extreme solutions would add anything other than in some special situations.

It's not an exaggeration but a consequence of following his line of thought.

Animal feces are still used in tribal cultures as ignition for camp fires and are largely handled by hand while cooking.

And what is it that makes fertile soil? Largely feces and other dead organic matter.

 

[jyb]

And what is it that makes fertile soil? Largely feces and other dead organic matter.

Sorry but it's a wild exaggeration to say you're hunting for pop when eating veggies from the garden. Of course a trace of soil has dirt.

 

[cantstoppeating]

And what is it that makes fertile soil? Largely feces and other dead organic matter.

Sorry but it's a wild exaggeration to say you're hunting for pop when eating veggies from the garden.

No it's not. It's the logical consequence for his line of thought.

Eating what our ancestors ate is 'healthy'.
Bacteria is good for us because our ancestors ate bacteria in various forms.
(Our gut has bacteria, too).
Feces (human and otherwise) was present on the majority of foods consumed by humans.
Therefor feces is part of what our ancestors ate and is 'healthy'.
Thus I should eat feces.

If you don't want to eat feces, then you're doing it from emotional disgust, not because of some rational line of thought.

So then you may say 'I won't eat it because the pros outweight the cons; it'll do more bad than it'll do good' but then you're already steering away from what our ancestors ate (and had to deal with) and entering the territory of Peat a.k.a understand how our body works and give it what it needs. You're already beginning to change the environment into one that has less cons and more pros. So no need to stop with feces, why not continue with other things? Perhaps we just tolerated a bacteria filled gut, with pros and many cons, so maybe eliminating the bacteria, like we eliminated feces, would be more beneficial to us. And it seems like it is -- see the Scientific Studies section for plenty of studies showing it.

 

[jyb]

[
If you don't want to eat feces, then you're doing it from emotional disgust, not because of some rational line of thought.

I understand his point more as we were exposed to it than now as we bleach all our food with chlorine and use soap constantly. Did he argue ancestors were deliberately trying to eat poop if they found some in the animal?

 

[cantstoppeating]

[
If you don't want to eat feces, then you're doing it from emotional disgust, not because of some rational line of thought.

I understand his point more as we were exposed to it than now as we bleach all our food with chlorine and use soap constantly. Did he argue ancestors were deliberately trying to eat poop if they found some in the animal?

What does it matter whether or not they were deliberately trying to eat it? The point is that it was present and they consumed it and evolved with it.

 

[jyb]

What does it matter whether or not they were deliberately trying to eat it? The point is that it was present and they consumed it and evolved with it.

It's a question of quantity like I said. Extreme exposure usually does not have the same net physiological effect. Moderate exercise like walking increases cortisol a bit, is it as bad as the stress from marathon running? In the case of bacteria its similar. Eating more than a trace of soil is dangerous, I don't think anyone is trying to do that deliberately other than in some extreme situations like feces transplant.

And I think that would be a fair point for bacteria. I believe it is healthier to not use constantly soap for example. A few years ago some suspected that asthma were more likely for babies raised in very aseptic environment in western countries. While this is entirely up to discussion, the other side is not arguing for deliberately hunting for poop.

It's a bit like if I was saying that following your logic, you should feed antibiotics to breastfeeding babies, which are developing colonies from the milk fibre. Wouldn't that be an exaggeration?

 

[cantstoppeating]

What does it matter whether or not they were deliberately trying to eat it? The point is that it was present and they consumed it and evolved with it.

It's a question of quantity like I said. Extreme exposure usually does not have the same net physiological effect. Moderate exercise like walking increases cortisol a bit, is it as bad as the stress from marathon running? In the case of bacteria its similar. Eating more than a trace of soil is dangerous, I don't think anyone is trying to do that deliberately other than in some extreme situations like feces transplant.

And I think that would be a fair point for bacteria. I believe it is healthier to not use constantly soap for example. A few years ago some suspected that asthma were more likely for babies raised in very aseptic environment in western countries. While this is entirely up to discussion, the other side is not arguing for deliberately hunting for poop.

It's a bit like if I was saying that following your logic, you should feed antibiotics to breastfeeding babies, which are developing colonies from the milk fibre. Wouldn't that be an exaggeration?

I'm talking about the notion of what's good for us and how we come to decide upon it.

Like usual with these types of arguments, people don't understand that they can't just look at the bacteria in breast milk for example and then conclude 'it must be good for us'. Just because something exists, and we consume it, doesn't automatically mean it's the most beneficial for our health.

What if we could eliminate the bacteria in breast milk and eliminate the bacteria in our current environment? What would happen? Would we extend our maximal lifespan, live a more energetic and stress-free life?

And yes, antibiotics are regularly fed to newborn babies. A quick google search will reveal a lot more info.

 

[jyb]

Like usual with these types of arguments, people don't understand that they can't just look at the bacteria in breast milk for example and then conclude 'it must be good for us'. Just because something exists, and we consume it, doesn't automatically mean it's the most beneficial for our health.

But there is a difference with milk which makes it a more compelling intuition than the usual "populations seemed to do okay on starch so it can't be bad". Because babies have a high metabolism and breastfed babies specifically develop well, and in that sense they are models for your "maximal lifespan" aim. What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries. It turns out some of those eat all their dairy fermented, which increases both dietary milk bacteria and some types of prebiotics, although I think the other things in dairy alone might explain the benefits.

Maybe not everything can be extrapolated from babies to adults but whatever is fed to them, namely prebiotic'ed milk, can't be that bad. On that point I agree with Stuart. I would also add that milk composition seems carefully selected. This includes the anti-stress hormones that go in there, and calcium, lots of sat fats, physiological amounts of glucose, etc. If the bacteria and pre-biotics that are in there are not good, then it remains to explain why it got there at random why such babies seem to be so healthy...

 

[Stuart]

@ Cantstop..
Listen carefully to the man. He explained it all far better than I could have .
Besides, ancestral living humans never went out of their way to eat feces AFAIK. Nicholas mentioned that the Hadza eat the colon wall of their slain prey after they've squeezed out as much poop as they can. So I suppose they would inadvertently have consumed traces of feces too. Didn't seem to do them any harm. Nor does the poop bacteria you consume every time you flush your own feces. We use a compost toilet, so I think you actually consume more poop than I do. And you're O.K. aren't you?
Honestly Cantstop.., your obsession with feces is a bit alarming. There's far easier ways to get your SBO's if you are worried that you are missing out.
No need to seek out poop to eat, I assure you.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries.

Do we really need models for intuition? That's a very vague statement. Almost all other cultures did not use dairy the way certain Euros did so there are more examples of "intuition" without dairy. I personally like dairy used in the right way for me so I'm not anti-dairy. The problem is that thinking about intuition when it comes to human food is pointless simply because there are only two sources of food; certain edible parts of plants and certain edible parts of animals. There's nothing to think about. Plants and animals. If there were 10 other elements that were human food, and disease was mostly a mystery, then I would agree that we need to look for intuition, but since there's only two elements of food I think there's nothing to think about. You can eat the "meat" of a fruit but you can't eat the seeds, meaning that your gut can't break them down and get nutrients from them. It's clear what part of the fruit is real food. Sure, certain seed such as sesame can be ground up and made into tahini but theres probably a reason why mixing it with chickpeas to make hummus is the most widely used version. You can eat the meat and organs of an animal but you can't eat the bones. You can crack them open and eat the marrow but you can't eat the actual bone. You can eat shellfish but you can't eat the shell. You can eat eggs but you can't eat the shell without a coffee grinder and even then eggshell powder is not an energy source, its a calcium supplement. In the wild there are plants and animals. You can't eat rocks, you can't eat bark, you can't drink sea water because you'll die. Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier. Even with cooking and processing, there is still only a very limited number of what is human food, even at present and far gone from the wild.

 

[Stuart]

What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries.

Do we really need models for intuition? That's a very vague statement. Almost all other cultures did not use dairy the way certain Euros did so there are more examples of "intuition" without dairy. I personally like dairy used in the right way for me so I'm not anti-dairy. The problem is that thinking about intuition when it comes to human food is pointless simply because there are only two sources of food; certain edible parts of plants and certain edible parts of animals. There's nothing to think about. Plants and animals. If there were 10 other elements that were human food, and disease was mostly a mystery, then I would agree that we need to look for intuition, but since there's only two elements of food I think there's nothing to think about. You can eat the "meat" of a fruit but you can't eat the seeds, meaning that your gut can't break them down and get nutrients from them. It's clear what part of the fruit is real food. Sure, certain seed such as sesame can be ground up and made into tahini but theres probably a reason why mixing it with chickpeas to make hummus is the most widely used version. You can eat the meat and organs of an animal but you can't eat the bones. You can crack them open and eat the marrow but you can't eat the actual bone. You can eat shellfish but you can't eat the shell. You can eat eggs but you can't eat the shell without a coffee grinder and even then eggshell powder is not an energy source, its a calcium supplement. In the wild there are plants and animals. You can't eat rocks, you can't eat bark, you can't drink sea water because you'll die. Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier. Even with cooking and processing, there is still only a very limited number of what is human food, even at present and far gone from the wild.

I agree. And the same apples to SBO's. No intuition required. People who spend their entire lives in dirt (which humans did until very very recently) can't help consuming a lot of SBO's. No need whatsoever to 'seek out feces to eat. Besides, it smells disgusting. There's a reason for that. There's far better things to eat. The tiny amounts of soil you consume automatically provided plenty of SBO's. In a cleanliness obsessed world a pinch of soil is probably prudent. Soil smells good too, and is tasteless. I seriously doubt the same can be said for feces.

 

[oxidation_is_normal]

Bodhi, of course they were... Is someone claiming people weren't exposed to gluten and PUFA before a certain time? We don't even think they all aged better than all of us. There are a lot of people in the world now who age quite well. There were probably food allergies back then - probably way fewer, though.

What's the question? Why people didn't have problem x while still being exposed to the same y? Here is an example of why there can be lots of reasons. Let's take gluten. We know modern wheat has a lot more of it, a lot of our food has more of it, we have more inflammatory diseases (which irritate the gut and increase exposure to the rest of the body from things in the gut), and they simply at different (strains of) gluten-containing plants.

 

[jyb]

Do we really need models for intuition? That's a very vague statement. Almost all other cultures did not use dairy the way certain Euros did so there are more examples of "intuition" without dairy.

It's not just some populations using dairy - almost all humans use dairy as a babies, a period of high metabolism and development. And then I cited some examples of adults using it.

"Models" in the way I used it only meant references that guide us: observations of different populations, scientific studies, past personal experiments...