[QUOTE=Dragonfly;1153310]Well said. My pup eats enough, thank you!
I'm thinking of starting an "I HATE Kale thread". Think I'll be kicked out MDA for trolling?[/QUOTE]My Wolf Cub eats very well and he likes my carnivorousness.
I would join you on a kale hate thread any day. They would have to kick us both out.;) That stuff is only fit for horse fodder, IMO.
Nora Gedgaudas in this AHS video
makes the point that plenty of animal sourced fats and proteins in your diet signal to your body that "hunting is good". This is the condition in which the cost benefit analysis of keeping extra fat tissue tips toward it being an impediment rather than a survival tool as it would be if your body is getting the signal through a low fat WW diet that there is a famine going on.
Taking that and running with it just a bit further, I have this working hypothesis. So some background info.
Plant matter in significant quantities is a "Plan B" food, something to keep you from starving when the hunt does not go well.
In this TED talk Dr Christina Warinner does a poor job of "debunking" paleo strawmen but there were some interesting points in her talk nonetheless.
[url=http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ]Watch "Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner at TEDxOU" Video at TEDxTalks[/url]
She points out how Paleolithic vegetables and fruits would have had little resemblance to the benign and nutritious stuff we have created and engineered which now fills the produce department. She cited the anti nutrients, fibrousness, and spiky defenses we have bred out of them and the sugar content we have bred in. No self respecting Grok would have bothered to collect wild broccoli or wild lettuce unless s/he was starving. It would just not have been worth the energy expenditure to do so unless the tribe was seriously hungry and had no other alternatives.
So, hypothesis: If you feed your body a lot of veggies, you are giving it the chemical signals that hunting sucks and it had better hold on to every available calorie for dear life. If you feed your body meat and fat on a regular basis, it gets the idea that hunting is great and it can relax and run the metabolism a bit higher even, catch some more of that yummy meat.
What do you think?
My thoughts exactly! Tubers may have been a bit more palatable, but only when we discovered fire.
Pardon me but there is a pot roast calling my name.
Paleobird, your thread definitely made a change in my eating habits. The majority of my eating lately has been meat centered. I do use spices and my daily coconut oil spoonful. Also feast on sauerkraut when the farmers market has local, raw, organic sauerkraut flavors I like. But, for the most part, meat and offal only. Definitely has made a difference I feel.
Worked fine for the Inuit, but they had high fat marine mamals to eat and high nutrition low calorie plant foods in summer periods along with customary nutritional practices which for the better part are lost now, these specific habits are what allowed them to survive in a harsh environment, not just eating lots of meat.
I'd be concerned about protein intake, Nora Gedgaudas also holds the line about adequate protein, not excess, so my feelings are it's a bit too far on the fringe, but if that's what rocks your boat, then rock on.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1153480]So, hypothesis: If you feed your body a lot of veggies, you are giving it the chemical signals that hunting sucks and it had better hold on to every available calorie for dear life. If you feed your body meat and fat on a regular basis, it gets the idea that hunting is great and it can relax and run the metabolism a bit higher even, catch some more of that yummy meat.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. But I wonder what the timeline is for various fruits and veggies vs. grains. IOW, have we had more time for evolutionary adjustment to, say, lettuce or apples as compared to wheat.
I'm a proponent of aquatic evolution -- the idea that our ancestors branched from other primates as a result of becoming semi-aquatic. We would've gone from bananas to oysters.
[QUOTE]I'm a proponent of aquatic evolution -- the idea that our ancestors branched from other primates as a result of becoming semi-aquatic. We would've gone from bananas to oysters.[/QUOTE] I assume you mean coastal living rather than actually aquatic, like with fins. Evolutionary migrations suggest we first traced the coastlines to inhabit the world before we ventured inland and as sea levels were lower at that time a good part of our history is underwater now.
As for Bananas, well again I assume you are speaking figuratively as they are indigineous to Papua New Guinnea and were only spread throughout the world in the last 300 years.
I assume you're quite literal.