"Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey": Paleo In Six Easy Steps, A Motivational Guide

[bagtagley]

Also, any suggestions on the best sources for lard and tallow? I imagine the lard I see in the case at Safeway is from a hog raised on meds and corn, which seems particularly bad given most mammals propensity to store chemicals in their fat.

Just make your own from pork fat. If you have a source for forest/grass-fed pork, ask 'em for some fat. Nobody wants it, so it's usually pretty cheap. You can make your own tallow, too. I've never done it, but I imagine the process is similar to lard. Dan will be along soon to clarify.

[jfost]

...BUTTER. Hence the name 'butyrate'...

but which came first, IUPAC or the word butter?

butyrate = butanoic acid = butane based hydrocarbon???

potato/potato I guess...

[Dantheman]

Dan will be along soon to clarify.

Heh.

Rendering your own animal fat is sofa king easy. Get yourself several pounds of fat, poke the shit out of it with a fork, dice into half-inch cubes and put it all in a big pot with 1/2 cup of water in a 200* oven for about six hours. Strain into containers (I like mason jars) and store in the fridge.

If you get weird looks or "isn't fat bad for you?" questions, remind them that everyone of the trillions of cell membranes in your body are made of a phospholipid bi-layer.

[Spats]

Awesome to hear. Do you mean that in regards to taste or healthfulness?

Also, any suggestions on the best sources for lard and tallow? I imagine the lard I see in the case at Safeway is from a hog raised on meds and corn, which seems particularly bad given most mammals propensity to store chemicals in their fat.

All the lard I see in supermarkets is 'partially hydrogenated', i.e. full of trans fats. Avoid if you see that word on the ingredient label.

Rendering your own lard/tallow is easy but time-consuming if you use a lot. I prefer the wet method because it tastes cleaner. Chop up the fat into tiny pieces (make sure you get all the little meat bits out) or grind it if you have a meat grinder, put it in a pot, cover the fat with water, bring it to a boil, turn it down to a simmer, and leave it simmering for a few hours until all the fat has cooked out of the pieces.

Then strain it through a colander to pull the solid pieces out, and refrigerate the liquid to make it solid. There will be some water left in the bottom: poke two holes in the solid disc of lard/tallow and pour the water out. Voila!

The best fat to make tallow or lard from is kidney fat (known on hogs as "leaf lard"): it's clean, hard, and doesn't have any meat stuck to it. A lot of people who buy a 1/2 or 1/4 beef don't want the fat, so you can often get it cheap from places that sell or slaughter local beef.

I just found a source for grass-fed beef tallow and ordered a gallon: I'll let people know if it works out.

[Spats]

Citing Wikipedia and then claiming to be well read on the topic, is classic.

I'm not citing Wikipedia. I'm citing the scientific papers listed by the references listed on Wikipedia. Since you didn't cite any sources AT ALL, I had to start somewhere...

Your continued bullshit and ad hominems are making it very difficult for me to not just tell you to shut the fuck up.

Try looking at any of the 2686 results on Pub Med. There are lots of examples like, Evaluation of the expression of metalloproteinases 2 and 9 and their tissue inhibitors in colon cancer cells treated with phytic acid.

OK, so now you've started frantically Googling to find something that supports your unsupported assertions. Let's look at that study:

"The results of this study show that IP6 modulates MMP-2, TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 genes expression in colon cancer cells at the transcriptional level in a way dependent on its concentration and time of interaction."

If you dig into the details, basically IP6 (phytic acid) either increases or decreases the expression of MMP and TIMP, depending on its concentration and a host of other factors. And guess what? At low concentrations it increases MMP, which (if anything) would increase cancer activity -- though that's a stretch.

Oops. Wasn't your theory that low doses were therapeutic even if high doses were harmful?

Either way, there's no question, in terms of chemistry, it is both a chelator and an antioxidant.

And what is the benefit of antioxidants?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17327526
"Multivariate meta-regression analyses showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04[corrected]-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995) were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined, significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium had no significant effect on mortality."

CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

In other words: no one has found any health benefits to any of these dietary antioxidants, and several are associated with INCREASED mortality!

[Art Shirk]

Spats is eating SaltMind's lunch for him. And its full of meat and fat.

[iceman]

Spats is eating SaltMind's lunch for him. And its full of meat and fat.

Well I'm sure he expected some trouble, but I doubt he expected the Spanish Inquisition!

[QuikR12]

Since I had coincidently bought about 7 lbs of steak on sale when I started reading this thread two days ago, I decided to jump on the bandwagon and see what it was all about. I know that nobody gives a shit about my anecdotal experience, but I will tell you that I am experiencing much less drowsiness throughout the day, definitely less (zero in fact) post lunch crash, and do feel as though I have more energy. I really don't think this is placebo. I can feel a significant change in just two days, mostly around eating time. We'll see how it goes from here, and if I actually lose fat and gain muscle, cause i'm digging the shit out of that gooey steak fat.

[rideit]

I am writing a book about a new diet.
It is revolutionary.
It's called the "Pale-Aleo" diet.

[BurnHard]

I am writing a book about a new diet.
It is revolutionary.
It's called the "Pale-Aleo" diet.

LMFAO!

45678

[hafilax]

There is no question that vitamins are necessary to be healthy. My guess at what has gone on with the antioxidant craze is that it was observed that people who's diets were high in antioxidants seemed to be healthier. It was then hypothesized that maybe it was the antioxidant properties that were helping and that this might help with certain cancers.

The clinical trials in that meta study were looking at the effects of antioxidant supplements on mortality rates in healthy and high risk cancer groups. They did not involve foods that are high in antioxidants.

My conclusion is from the study is that there is no evidence that these vitamin supplements will reduce cancer risk and may increase mortality rates although in what way it is not understood.

Isolated supplements are notorious for not working the way scientists expect based on simple biochemistry because the interactions with everything else in food is so strong. Understanding a single part of the body's biochemistry can lead to missing the forest for the trees.

This reminds me of the cholesterol scare which has been discussed. It seems that that whole deal came about in a similar fashion, when it was observed that cholesterol clogged the arteries. Foods that were high in cholesterol were immediately blamed and it took a long time to actually figure out the mechanism behind the clogging and that it wasn't due to ingested cholesterol at all but through other mechanisms in the body.

Right now it looks like antioxidant supplements don't prevent cancer like was hoped but I still think that there is little doubt that foods high in antioxidants are good for you in some way. Just because the exact mechanism isn't known doesn't mean that they aren't healthy to eat and blueberries certainly don't increase mortality rates.

FWIW I don't think that vitamin supplements do anything other than make expensive pee. I have started taking fish oil since it seems to be one of the only universally agreed on supplements that has shown concrete benefits in experiments. Mineral supplements seem to be a good idea for people deficient in them and I guess zinc, iron and folate are good for prenatal women.

[woodstocksez]

[Second citation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383315

This isn't a study at all -- it's pure speculation, that the reason high-fiber diets are correlated with less colon cancer might be because of the action of phytic acid.

But again, it might not.

reanalysis of the dietary data = pure speculation.

I did not know that.

Spats, isn't a lot (or, at least, some) of what you do re-analysis of dietary data? So, pure speculation - is that what you're doing? Or am I misunderstanding something? Can you clarify?

Therefore, it is possible that wheat is a proxy for some other variable outside the study -- but it's incumbent on YOU to propose what this factor might be ...

Actually, no, I don't think it (necessarily) is. A sensible person is aware, as our understanding penetrates new areas, that relationships suggested by an avenue of investigation may, in fact, not exist, for possible reasons that we can imagine and those we can't. You're not anywhere near the end of knowledge and understanding, Spats, nor is anyone else, as Iceman pointed out above. You'd do well to appreciate the differences between the content and tone of the conclusions that woman presents (and how the commenters consider them) and the manner in which you commonly present your purported knowledge and understanding (not only on this subject, but others as well). The consensus was suspicion regarding the relationship between wheat consumption and heart disease, but no one contended that a causal relationship had been shown, whether or not they had some other hypothesis as to what was going on.

[andrewjesaitis]

I'm actually quite inclined to try out the Paleo diet. I know my uncle swears by it.

I guess I've always sort of held the belief calories in < calories out, then you lose weight. Maybe your body can process some forms of calories more efficiently than others so in reality (calories in) * (XX% )< (calories out). I realize this is an over simplification as was previously stated, but here are my questions:

Ignoring all other health benefits (or deficits) of a diet like this, does it still basically boil down to the calories in vs out thing, but what is actually changing is your appetite? That is to say, on a high carb diet it is difficult to ever be satiated long term, so you end up snacking and blowing your daily caloric balance. Or is this just completely wrong.

Second question: for someone (me) who doesn't need to lose weight (and if anything could gain some muscle mass) why should they do this? I saw a couple pages back people mentioning better sleep and lowering cholesterol, but I don't really have issues with either of these.

[Spats]

We'll see how it goes from here, and if I actually lose fat and gain muscle, cause i'm digging the shit out of that gooey steak fat.

Great! Keep us posted. And don't worry about being a purist: do whatever you can with the time you have. If your body reacts well, you'll naturally want to keep going farther along the path, and it won't feel like an obligation.

You'll notice that when you're eating plenty of animal fat, you're not constantly craving fatty snack foods like french fries and potato chips. Isn't it ironic how we buy "low-fat" burgers...and then eat seed oil-saturated french fries with it because there's not enough fat in the meat?

Our bodies crave animal fat because it's not just energy...as Dantheman helpfully points out, every cell in our body is made of animal fat. (And protein.) The idea that saturated fat is bad for you is the most destructive health scam ever propagated.

(a very good post)

Exactly.

FWIW I don't think that vitamin supplements do anything other than make expensive pee. I have started taking fish oil since it seems to be one of the only universally agreed on supplements that has shown concrete benefits in experiments. Mineral supplements seem to be a good idea for people deficient in them and I guess zinc, iron and folate are good for prenatal women.

EPA/DHA and vitamin D (which is a prohormone, not a vitamin) are the two big ones IMO. If you're eating plenty of meat and eggs, zinc, iron, and folate aren't concerns. (Liver is the best source of folate, followed by eggs and some beans.)

There is also benefit to things like curcumin and ECGC (green tea) which are available in the diet, but can also be supplemented.

butyrate = butanoic acid = butane based hydrocarbon???

Fats aren't hydrocarbons, they've got oxygen in them. So do sugars. Proteins all have nitrogen in them, too. And butter came before IUPAC

The big leap of logic is noting that canola is 2% trans fat and then jumping to the conclusion that eating canola will double your chances of getting heart disease which is patently false unless you get 100% of your calories from canola oil.

I don't state that. It might look like I'm implying it, because the percentages happen to be the same (2% and 2%)...perhaps I can find a better way to phrase that. The point stands, though: there is a meaningful amount of trans fat in seed oil that's not listed on the label, and cooking with it most likely creates more.

There's a reason seed oils burn and go rancid quickly: polyunsaturates are far less stable than saturates. That's why they're hydrogenated (creating trans fats) in order to use them as frying oils.

The hexane thing is pure scare tactics as well. Volatile solvents tend to evaporate completely. Show me that there is hexane in vegetable oil. Don't just say hexane=death therefor canola does as well. It's ridiculous.

I don't claim there is hexane in seed oil. Hexane emissions from processing plans are the issue: as I note here (you can follow my link to the EPA white paper if you like), a large soy processing plant emits about five million pounds of hexane per year. In fact, seed oil extraction is the largest source of hexane emissions, not industrial use.
http://www.gnolls.org/812/the-term-v...e-advertising/

I don't think it's 'scare tactics' to point out that something we've been told is "Heart-Healthy!" (canola oil) is likely far worse for us than something we're told is "ARTERYCLOGGINGSATURATEDFAT!" (beef tallow).

[MultiVerse]

Spats is eating SaltMind's lunch for him. And its full of meat and fat.

Well I'm sure he expected some trouble, but I doubt he expected the Spanish Inquisition!

Meh, Spats is throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks and I'm not nearly as committed as he is in rebutting all of it but I will say that some of his own sources agree me and not him. For example, the author of his own Whole Health Source eats brown rice and recommends it over white rice for the micronutrients. The author does recommend taking steps to reduce the phytic acid if you eat a lot of brown rice but in moderation go ahead and eat it. Maybe spats should write Stephan Guyenet a strongly worded letter after he gets done telling me to fuck off.

Moreover, in the blog post he linked to, the author writes, "Fiber intake was associated with lower blood markers of inflammation in the Women's Health Initiative study, and has been repeatedly associated with lower heart attack risk and reduced progression of atherosclerosis in humans. Butyrate also sharply reduces the harmful effects of type 1 diabetes in rats, as does dietary fiber to a lesser extent." And goes on to say, "There are two main ways to get butyrate and other short-chain fatty acids. The first is to eat fiber and let your intestinal bacteria do the rest. Whole plant foods such as sweet potatoes, properly prepared whole grains, beans, vegetables, fruit and nuts are good sources of fiber" or eat lots of butter but then goes on to tout the benefits of a high fiber diet.

And from that spats concludes, "In other words, it's the fucking butter, not the phytic acid. Case closed." Spats's statement on the face of it is quite the leap. It's certainly not scientifically conclusive and the idea that people should be eating butter and not include fiber rich foods like whole grains is not supported be the author.

In fact, while the author maintains his position on wheat, he does conclude that he has rethought his position on fiber because total butyrate production clearly [increases] in the cellulose group, more than the pectin group. and goes on to say, "On the other hand, I'm coming to realize that the Inuit may not have been as healthy as certain other non-industrial groups."

[MultiVerse]

I'm not citing Wikipedia. I'm citing the scientific papers listed by the references listed on Wikipedia. Since you didn't cite any sources AT ALL, I had to start somewhere...

OK, so now you've started frantically Googling to find something that supports your unsupported assertions. Let's look at that study:

Oops. Wasn't your theory that low doses were therapeutic even if high doses were harmful?

No frantically Googling and no cited sources because what I stated is simply a matter of chemistry: phytic acid is a chelator and an antioxident.

And No. My main assertion is that whole grains are a net positive when consumed in moderate amounts and that according to the previously linked Harvard Study, "replacing intake of white rice with the same amount of brown rice was associated with a 16% (lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas the same replacement with whole grains as a group was associated with a 36% lower diabetes risk."

Separably, phytic acid functions as an antioxidant in the chemical sense--and that there's speculation that it can function to prevent cancer metastasis*--which in spite of your unrelated tangent on other antioxidants, it very much is. The chelation and antioxidant properties are very much related. Someone with an introductory knowledge of chemistry should be able to understand what is a straightforward process.

Separately, if you want to have a different discussion on a broadly defined topic called "antioxidants" then go ahead.



* According to the study: The anticancer activity of IP6 (phytic acid) is one of the most important beneficial activities of IP6. It has been demonstrated to have both preventive and therapeutic effects against various cancers. IP6 exerts its effect in cancer cells by modulating their proliferation and apoptosis, adhesion and metastatic activity. However, the molecular mechanisms of IP6 action are still under investigation.
...
In conclusion, the results of this study show that IP6 modulates MMP-2, TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 genes expression in colon cancer cells at the ranscriptional level in a way dependent on its concentration and time of interaction. The gene encoding MMP-9 was neither constitutively expressed nor induced by IP6 in Caco-2 cells.

[iceman]

Well I'm sure he expected some trouble, but I doubt he expected the Spanish Inquisition!

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

[Spats]

Ignoring all other health benefits (or deficits) of a diet like this, does it still basically boil down to the calories in vs out thing, but what is actually changing is your appetite? That is to say, on a high carb diet it is difficult to ever be satiated long term, so you end up snacking and blowing your daily caloric balance. Or is this just completely wrong.

Yes, appetite is much of it. There's some interesting research that shows people really want to eat a certain amount of complete protein per day. If your diet is poor in complete protein (i.e. heavy on sugar and grains -- grains have protein, but it isn't complete), you'll eat and eat until you somehow get enough, and you'll get fat. (Try to eat candy and Wheat Thins until you're satisfied...you'll never do it, no matter how full you feel.) And if your diet is overloaded with complete protein, you'll eat very little and go "Ugh, can't eat any more"...but you'll still be hungry.

This is why 'low-fat' paleo is bogus: calories have to be from protein, fat, or carbs. So if you say carbs are bad AND fat is bad, you're left eating protein...and you're going to be continually hungry. (i.e. the Faileo Diet) This is good for short-term weight-loss, but in the long term you'll feel like shit and give up.

Also, fat improves protein utilization, so you don't need as much on a high-fat diet. But since seed oils are bad for you, we're back at animal fat. Tasty, succulent animal fat. Mmmmmmm...

Your body craves fat. That is a fact. If you deny it, you get cravings and end up demolishing bags of shit like goldfish crackers that's made out of zero-nutrition grains and diesel fuel ('vegetable oil'). Eat fatty meats and eggs, and you won't need to eat french fries and Fritos.

(Aside: Eggs are wonderful. You know how many calories are in an egg? Maybe 80. And that 80 calories is pure win, with complete protein, healthy fats, vitamins, minerals, lutein...of course it's good for you, it's everything you need to grow a baby chicken!)

Moving on: Different types of calories affect your basal metabolism and hunger levels differently. In general, eating less just causes your body to burn less calories to make up for it, which is why most 'diets' fail. Your body says "OH NOES I'M STARVING!!111! BETTER CONSERVE ENERGY" and starts shutting down. You want to be in a mode where your body says "Lots of good food around, let's bulk up so we can run faster and get more of it." And that's what a good, solid high-animal-fat Paleoish diet does.

45 minutes on the elliptical is rounding error compared to what you burn just sitting around...so if you've shut your metabolism down by trying to 'diet' with nutrition-free low-fat "food", you're actually going to get fatter while eating less!

Second question: for someone (me) who doesn't need to lose weight (and if anything could gain some muscle mass) why should they do this? I saw a couple pages back people mentioning better sleep and lowering cholesterol, but I don't really have issues with either of these.

Longer functional lifespan because you're not eating toxic anti-nutrients, for starters.

Let me use myself as an example: I'm in your boat. I've never had a problem gaining weight; I have to be careful not to lose it. Upon going mostly gluten-free high-animal-fat Paleo, I've dropped several percent in bodyfat and gained it in muscle, with no additional physical effort. I can go without food without getting cranky and irritable: I used to be the guy you had to feed every three hours. Weird little random itches and rashes are gone. I have more energy.

Basically, try eating more fatty meat (which means you'll eat less other things) and see if you like the change. If so, try pushing it farther.

Guess all that fat has given you a ton of enerty (though you had a shitload before...I can't imagine you more energetic than back in SLC

Yeah, it's pretty alarming. I get better with age. I wish I could skate or DJ worth a shit so we could hang out next time I'm in FL.

And don't stress about being perfect about diet. Do what you can, and if it makes you feel better, you'll find a way to push it farther.

I'm not a big fan of the "Paleo Challenge", because it's kind of overwhelming: most of us can't cook worth a fuck and suddenly we're fixing all our own food? A lot of it is going to suck and be monotonous. Better to just start eating more fatty meat, which will naturally lead to eating less junk, which will lead to wanting to learn how to cook because you start craving real food instead of starch soaked in diesel fuel...

[Lurch]

I have serious problems with high cholesterol. Paleo has helped manage it. My cardiologist was excited - really. Mine went from 299 to 222. I did not alter my Paleo diet except to limit eggs to 6 per week. I eat either egg whites or egg beaters instead. I eat large quantities of sauteed veggies with lunch and dinner. I also eat much larger portions than most normal people. For example, I will eat 2 serving sizes of salmon plus a heaping mound of veggies, always cooked.

The key to lower cholesterol is to get rid of grains. It's key to many aspects of good health and performance. I have been working hard on this part of Paleo. It helps all the way around. No gluten.

My triglicerides were way up there and are now at 25 or so.

I can't take statins so this is important.

Maybe eliminating grains is key to lower cholesterol in your diet/activity level but I eat plenty of grains and have very low cholesterol and good health so I would not say it is a necessary.

I think the key to health is everything in balance including exercise. Our diet changing with our technology is what lead us to evolve from the great apes. Eat something now that we did not eat a millennia ago is not necessarily a bad thing. We would not have the brains we have now if we had not learned how to make weapons to hunt with or fire to cook with or Spats telling our ancestors that they can't eat antelope because flint spears were not around 80,000 years ago.

[corn dog]

Science= peer reviewed submission to established journals.
Pseudo science= blog posts and internet chat forums.

Science = what scientists do

[Mofro261]

Fats aren't hydrocarbons they've got oxygen in them

You really want to cling to this statement?!?

Can I use it as a general indication of your scientific training?

What do you think is attached to the carboxylic acid then?

Just magic tasty stuff?

[jfost]

Since I had coincidently bought about 7 lbs of steak ...two days ago....

I predict your grocery bill is about to increase.

[Spats]

You really want to cling to this statement?!?

Can I use it as a general indication of your scientific training?

What do you think is attached to the carboxylic acid then?

Just magic tasty stuff?

Since you're apparently hell-bent on making a fool out of yourself, I'll oblige:

Hydrocarbons are molecules that contain only carbon and hydrogen.

Fatty acids contain...guess what...that carboxyl group. Therefore, they are not hydrocarbons. If you cut the carboxyl off, it's not a fatty acid anymore, it's an aliphatic hydrocarbon.

Fatty acids in the body are usually bound in triglycerides or phospholipids, not in their free form -- but they've still got that carboxyl sitting on the end. Therefore, they are still not hydrocarbons.

Want to talk about beta-oxidation now?

Seriously: what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you so bent out of shape that someone else might have spent years studying the science behind this nutrition shit, and therefore know more about it than you do, that you're reduced to making trivially false claims and hoping no one else here notices?

Sheesh.

[mrryde]

It's been 10 days since I decided to go the Paleo route, couple of things I noticed.

First of all, I lost 8 lbs
I slept really well the last two nights.
I have absolutely no desire to snack, which is just fucking awesome
I am learning to like water
I do feel more energetic, but I haven't had a chance to get out for a long ride yet to see if I bonk earlier than usual

Here is another interesting thing, I got a whiff of a fresh loaf of Wonder bread this morning and I thought I was going to puke. That shit smells nasty, never noticed it before.

So far, so good

[zion zig zag]

One thing that I don't get about all of the paleo advice is the 'don't count calories, eat when you're hungry/until full', or some variation of that. I just don't think that would work for me, I'd eat 10000 calories everyday, I have to keep track. For example, for breakfast I just had 4 eggs, 3 strips bacon, and an apple smeared with almond butter (3 tbsp?) and I would love to eat more but I feel like I have to reign myself in.