October
2008
Did Grok Really Eat That Much Meat?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
“Meat Agaaaain!”
We get this question from time to time, and perhaps many of you, Primal Blueprint fans, do as well. Sometimes it comes as earnest curiosity, other times as a skeptic’s challenge. Either way, we think it’s an inquiry worth delving into. Care to join us?
First off, one note of reality/clarification. Sometimes we hear the criticism that the Primal Blueprint means eating obnoxious amounts of protein. This really isn’t so. In fact, in the scheme of diets out there, the Primal Blueprint doesn’t really qualify as a high protein diet. We usually recommend between 0.7 and 1.0 grams of protein per pound of lean mass. For the average person (i.e. not competing in the body building realm), this really isn’t that much. Check out Mark’s daily diet breakdown and our “How to Eat Enough Protein” posts for a brush up with more info and cool graphs.
But back to the common criticism… Paleo critics often argue that Grok and his clan would’ve never eaten as much meat as the paleo diet recommends - usually, they add, because they never could have caught that much. (Grok takes offense at their low estimation of his hunting talents, by the way.) We’ll give the critics this: it’s true that the evidence suggests variation among the eating habits of both ancient and modern hunter-gatherers. Some groups, typically those closer to the equator, consume more plants and less protein. Others, typically those at higher latitudes, consume fewer plants and more animals. The reason behind this divergence is, of course, the availability of year-round plant sources for foraging (or lack thereof). The savannahs of Africa offer more consistent plant abundance than, say, the tundra of North America where you only get limited seasonal offerings. It’s little surprise that the diets of their respective hunter-gatherer peoples show it. Furthermore, estimating the protein intake of ancient groups is hardly an easy or exact endeavor. Nonetheless, here’s why we think Grok was a meat lover.
First, we can examine the evidence surrounding the growing importance of meat during and for human evolution. Plant-based foods were, as we said, only seasonally available in many regions. Some scientists speculate that developed reliance on animal-based energy sources allowed humans to migrate into these areas that offered only limited and seasonal plant food sources. These migrations, particularly those far northward, would have meant significant reliance on animal fat and protein in dietary breakdown.
Likewise, researchers have the ability to compare what is known about human evolution and dietary shifts with physiological patterns seen in other primates today. From this kind of analysis, researchers have determined early humans’ development of “meat-adaptive” genes that helped humans uniquely process the natural fat and (in those days) inevitable parasites in meat, an ability that isn’t found to the same degree in other related primates. Once humans began consuming meat as a central diet staple some 2 ½ million years ago, the species experienced a surge in life span and competitive benefits in the fight for survival.
But as for the amount of meat, what is the significance of animal sources in Grok’s diet? Research of ancient and existing hunter-gatherer societies offers some expansive and telling contexts. Analysis suggests (PDF) that prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups, allowing for regional variation, generally received around 50% of their nutrition from animal sources (both protein and fat from land game and fish). Modern hunter-gatherer societies obtain 56-65% of their nutritional intake from fish and hunted game.
Other analyses reveal similar results. An often referenced study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition estimates hunter-gatherer animal food sources constituting between 45-65% of their total energy intake. The researchers point out that previous research had only taken into account the muscle tissue of game animals as nutrition source, whereas most hunting societies typically used the full potential of the “edible carcass,” which included organ meats, fat, and even bone marrow. (No use wastin’ good eatin’!) Their efficiency meant a higher nutritional gain per hunt than researchers estimated in the past. The researchers also believe that tribal societies likely relied more on large game hunt than others have previously suggested. The added fat in larger animals, they say, would have offered a better energy gain (eating) versus energy expender (hunting) opportunity. All that sprinting about had to be worth it, and a mammoth just offered more bang for the buck than a jack rabbit. Grok was no simpleton, mind you.
Finally, what’s pretty certain is the inherent variability of Grok’s daily diet. When it came to meat in those good old, primal days, it was likely feast or famine when it came to game flesh. Without the benefits of a deep freezer or even simple ice house, meat could go bad quickly. (Of course, this presents one of the benefits of living in the brutal tundra.) Grok and his entourage chowed down the day of the hunt, likely gorging themselves because they knew it behooved them to do so. (A large hunt wasn’t the stuff of every day.) In more recent pre-agricultural times (and in many remaining hunter-gatherer groups) the following days would involve the laborious work of drying meat for longer term use. In between larger hunts, it’s likely that the group used the dried meat as well as smaller game for daily subsistence.
Because Grok’s daily diet was varied, so too is the PB plan. Enter the concept of Intermittent Fasting. Though fasting may conjure associations of new age, the PB includes it (intermittent style) precisely because it’s reflective of the primal age. Likewise, we put less emphasis on day to day caloric breakdowns - and schedules - than we do on long term dietary patterns (i.e. how much protein you tend to eat in a given week or two week period). Check out our Context of Calories post for more on the concept.
What’s clear from the research is this: protein (along with animal fat) was a much more significant part of hunter-gatherer diets than it is in today’s dietary recommendations. The human body evolved to allow for and strategically use (and release when necessary) additional protein intake. Sure, our dear Grok may not have had the benefits of readily available, packaged meats at all hours of every day like we do; however, is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that modern day availability of meat offers us the most ideal (physiologically speaking) opportunity? With some key gestures toward ancient eating patterns (e.g. IF), perhaps we have the chance to eat enough quality meat consistently enough to achieve truly optimal functioning, a state Grok would’ve tipped his hat to. (Well, if he’d had one, we suppose.) Hmmm. Interesting idea. (Sometimes we tend to get so down on modern living and all….)
So, heard or considered this question before? What are your thoughts on how Grok had it and what we can glean from his Primal model?
Luna Park, oudodou, Alaina B. Flickr Photos (CC)
Further Reading:
Would Grok Chow the Cheese Plate?
High Fat and Healthy: The Maasai Keep on Walking
Cranky Fitness: Calorie Restriction, Protein and Longevity
One thing that I have often thought of when I have pondered this question is that Groks that lived coastally probably had no problem eating a lot of meat a lot of the time. Fishing isn’t exactly difficult to learn and once proficient, caching fish daily isnt out of the question at all. They also had the opportunity to catch lobster and crab and dig oysters. I know that when we took our last vacation, one of the local hotel staff swam out every day with just a spear and came back with a fish or lobster. This was in a busy, touristy, high boat traffic area with probably far fewer fish than would have been there for Grok.
First off, great article! Another argument to the “meat non-believers” comes from a book called ‘Meat Eating and Human Evolution’ by Craig B. Stanford and Henry T Bunn. In their conclusions, the authors, “…suggest that increased access to animal protein and fat enabled early hominids to break free from the constraints that limit the prenatal brain growth of other haplorhines [other primates].”
Therefore, in order to produce babies with larger brains than other primates (which our ancestors clearly accomplished), early humans would have had to incorporate much more meat into their diets than previously estimated.
I know almost nothing about the primal diet, as I’ve only recently stumbled across this site (via MizFit). I wonder, however, if one’s ethnic background might inform the amount of & types of meat that can be eaten/tolerated - or if we’re all so mixed & modernized that it wouldn’t/shouldn’t matter.
My primary genetic make-up is Norwegian - but very northern Norwegian (Lappland area), so perhaps that’s why I enjoy my venison steaks so much
I read that AJCN Cordain study a while back. Great paper. He does indeed say that HGs got 54-65% of their calories from animal sources, but that’s a bit misleading. If you crunch the numbers yourself, the average percentage is over 66%. The median category is 66-75%!
I think he’s actually underestimating the numbers, because his analysis has a tendency to underestimate the fat content of animal foods. This is because he uses “representative” values for fat content that are from lean animals, whereas HGs went for the fattest animals they could get.
Another interesting thing about HGs from that paper: they weren’t too fond of vegetables!
Oops, I meant 45-65%.
Just look at eskimos, they eat nothing but meat and don’t consider plants to be food. The only time they eat anything other than meat is when they’re starving, during which time there is one root they’ll add to their diet. I got this from Good Calories, Bad Calories.
I think you are spot on with the idea that just because Grok didn’t get meat every day it doesn’t mean getting meat every day is not optimal. I have thought about this myself in the context of other things like hydration - see this article if you are interested - this article.
And how about those grubs, bugs, and creepy crawlies? I suppose it is insect meat, but not meat as we conventionally think of it. Even Grok’s kids could have helped to procure those nutritious foods. Insects provide lots of great protein and fatty acids and generally easy to find under logs, etc. Certain preparation techniques make insects a perfect on-the-go food, too.
That source of nutrition isn’t common in western diets today, but it’s still eaten in many parts of the world today. yes, aardvarks still have some competition.
When I was in Japan about 8 years ago, we loaded up on fried & seasoned cricket packets at the 100 yen store (similar to a 99-cent store, but far better) for fun, lightweight and packable souvenirs for the folks back home. I’m willing to bet very few westerners would be able to identify crispy Japanese cricket snacks if eaten blind-folded.
Anna, did you really give them to your friends and relatives without their knowledge?? Did you get any feedback??
Hey lucky you werent stopped in customs!!
I think your website is great!!! Thanks
Rest assured, Sarena, all the recipients of the fried crickets & such could easily see the contents through the clear plastic bags, even if they couldn’t read Kanji.
And regarding Customs, I’ve found that non-perishable packaged foods like this usually get through without issue, though I always declare I have nonperishable packaged snacks - I think they assume crackers & cookies, & such (and I occasionally have to go to one more station to show the items). Fresh and potentially spoiled food items (like meat, cheese), not to mention dutiable (?) or restricted items (like caviar) are the things that have trouble getting through Customs. Also, anything that might harbor stowaway pests, like fresh fruits. I’ve never had a problem with chocolate, packages of cookies, etc.
But I never try to sneak anything through Customs; I always truthfully declare anything questionable (though I don’t go into more detail than asked or necessary) and I am prepared to let it go if they insist on confiscating. I’ve brought through unwashed sheep and goat fleece (for spinning) without problems, even an oily, but quite dry roasted quail head leftover from my appetizer at St. John Restaurant (of Nose-to-Tail, Whole Beast fame). The head generated a circle of agents discussing whether to let it pass through or be confiscated). We were able to take it home and let the ants clean it off so we could see the bones, before they devoured the bones, too - that head and the challenge presented by our waiter features at the very end of this home movie
http://homepage.mac.com/gandasalvesen/Movies/iMovieTheater45.html
But the last trip, Customs wouldn’t allow the unopened boxed lunch (containing all crappy packaged items) that was served on the flight while my son was sleeping. There’s often no rhyme nor reason to how they decide what gets through and what doesn’t.
Mark or Aaron, what are your thoughts on krill oil? Do you think it is better than fish oil as far as bioavailability of Omega-3s?
Hello, Sally,
Thanks for the question. I’ve touched on this in the past. Check it out:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/index.php?s=krill+oil
Also, Tim Ferris of the 4 Hour Work Week wrote about Krill Oil awhile back. I chimed in.
Here’s his post:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/07/23/krill-oil-48x-better-than-fish-oil/
Here’s my comment:
Interesting choice of headline. It’s a bit sensationalist to suggest that krill is “48x” as potent as fish oil. The line you derive that headline from simply suggests that the natural ORAC (antioxidant) capacity of krill is 48x higher than that of fish oil. But no one in their right mind takes either for its antioxidant capacity. For example, when you look at ORAC, the amount of krill Tim takes offers less than 5% of what might be considered the “DV” (or RDA) of antioxidants. We get orders of magnitude more antioxidants from fruits and vegetables (or other supplements). We take krill or fish oil supplements because they are great sources of DHA and EPA. And it that regard, they are virtually identical (subjective reports of diminished PMS symptoms in one study notwithstanding). Furthermore, most fish oil refiners add vitamin E to the oil as an antioxidant to give stability and add shelf-life, so the comparative shelf lives are also similar. I really don’t see one as being “better” than the other…intead, I see two alternative choices, either of which might represent the single best supplement choice you could make if you were only to take one supplement.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Cheers!
You mention that people around the equator would have been eating more vegetable/plant matter than those at higher latitudes. Because homo sapiens sapiens arose in basically equatorial Africa, aren’t they the Grok you want to emulate? Understanding that you are using evolutionary arguments, shouldn’t you focus exclusively on the evolutionary lineage, and not on offshoots?
Kurt, good point. When I say the equatorial ancestors ate more plants, it doesn’t mean they ate little meat - just maybe a little less. It also means they might have had access to more plant matter - all the time. But even when you consider seasonal variations when migrating, you do get copious amounts of plants well into the 60 north and 45 south latitudes, so all ancestors except maybe Inuit and the like had access to both. But meat was the driver of our evolution. All homo sapiens ancestors ate animals and insects (which is how we got the chance to separate from our simian cousins). Ironically, then, when people ask about my food pyramid I tell them: I don’t think pure vegetarianism works by itself, and yet I say it’s perhaps wisest to think of vegetables (and some fruits) as the base of your food pyramid (not in terms of calories, but in terms of focus, bulk, quantity, variety, etc.). Meat, fish, fowl, eggs, etc are the next level in term of quantity (but then they certainly represent the bulk of calories).
The main problem with adding a lot of meat to your diet is that the commonly available feedlot beef and pork you buy at the supermarket or eat at a restaurant is pretty nasty stuff. The animals are kept in horrid conditions, heavily drugged and fed really wretched stuff like cheap flaked corn mixed with rendered animal fat.
My experience is that very few people who embrace the primal concept are willing to go to the great trouble of obtaining and eating only top quality grass fed and grass finished meat. Instead they simply eat more of the health damaging mass-produced meat that is available everywhere.
Binko,
I think you will find that many people here go that extra mile. I know that many of us focus on grass-fed hormone free meats. We are also picky about the fish we eat. Check out Mark’s posts on Wild Vs. Farmed fished. Mark also has posts on eggs and what are truly quality eggs. Many of us also go for handpicked local hormone free healthy fed and excersiced chicken eggs.
Binko, you are right, most don’t. But more and more do.
I’m one of those. I have half a range fed-bison in my freezer, as well as pork, beef, lamb, goat, and chicken I buy from a couple in my county who raise a few animals in a clean humane way on their rural lot, then have them processed at a local place.
More than a few people I know are coming back to meats other than fish after many years of abstinence (I consider fish meat, BTW), now that grass-fed and “clean” sources are more available.
I find the hardest thing is to convince people to get a good sized, efficient freezer and buy meat in bulk. It’s much cheaper in the long run, and is very convenient.
IIRC Cordain, Eades and Devany all note that the bones of Grok in 15000 BC show a powerfully built 6ft predator - at least as big if not bigger than today’s 6ft athletes (think of Linford Christie’s awesome physique circa 1992).
Archeological evidence shows that settled agriculture began 10000-15000 years ago in the Middle East/Mediterranean region - and anyone who has visited the Mediterranean will be aware of what I think Devany calls the ‘Mediterranean Physique’. Basically, small.
In contrast, North Europeans took to settled agriculture (and so a plant based diet), much later, and are by comparison ‘generally’ much larger - as a visit to Norway or the Netherlands will prove.
I’d go for a large and athletic physique any day!
Here’s an interesting history of height. Nutrition and diet are definitely involved, perhaps more than we commonly think.
http://www.macleans.ca/science/technology/article.jsp?content=20050404_103140_103140
http://dutch-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_are_the_dutch_so_tall
Here’s another interesting article on the history of height data and the connection to nutrition, from the New Yorker. It’s long, but very informative.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/04/05/040405fa_fact?currentPage=all
[...] pounds, Coke (soda or pop to you non-Southerners) with or without ice, atomic cake, meant to munch meat, drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable substances, Heart Attack Grill (not [...]
If Grok ate Elk, he had a great tasting meal! It’s definitely my favorite in taste. Also, Elk is a very lean meat and much higher in protein than cow meat and chicken. The taste of Elk is out of this world!
My sister and her husband hunt; they would definitely agree on the taste of elk and caribou. But I think modern humans have the fat/protein thing backwards. The best nutrition in game isn’t necessarily the muscle meat.
Consider that in late autumn, when the animals are at the peak of their nutritional density (they’re fat! in preparation for winter), and human-edible plant matter would have been dwindling (or unavailable if covered with snow already on buried in frozen ground) humans would have been after that elk fat much more than the meat. The temps would stay cold enough for lengthy preservation, too.
The data suggests that Grok went for the fat deposits and ate their fill of bone marrow (piles of smashed bones) and the fat that accumulates around the kidneys (in pork, this is the prized leaf lard). Eating lean muscle meat without adequate fat isn’t enough to get a hunter-gatherer like Grok through winter; if he ate primarily lean meat Grok could experience rabbit sickness or rabbit starvation, the result of eating primarily protein without fat. Rabbit starvation isn’t fun - it’s still a possibility today for Grok’s progeny if they trim too much fat and load up on lean protein.
[...] Did Grok Really Eat That Much Meat? [...]
Good point Anna,
Rabbit starvation or Protien Poisoning is common knowledge for survivalists. You can’t eat only lean meat… or you die. You need those fats!
[...] last week’s post Did Grok Really Eat That Much Meat?, we cited research highlighting the substantial role that animal sources (fish/meat, fat/protein) [...]
[...] Did Grok eat that much meat? - Mark’s Daily Apple [...]