Pine Bark Flours page 5

[Rojo]

You pretty much have to accept that with the rare exception, you will not find much in the way of decently primal offerings eating out all the time.

Which brings us back to the point of being confined. Don't it?

I'm sorry if you and Paleobird don't like the sound of that word. But a diet, any diet, is necessarily confining. Sheesh.

[j3nn]

Because I don't need to. I have an endless variety of animal products with the veggies I like for flavor and color along the way. You are the one making the assumption that because I don't eat sugar or starch and am not too fond of several veggies, I must have an extremely limited potential eating repertoire.

You don't need to because it's not necessary or ideal and you like variety just like most others do. Your palate and medical needs are an exception, definitely not the norm. You found a medicinal purpose for your particular exclusion diet, a hack more or less, which is actually really cool. It doesn't change the fact that there are plant groups that are a wonderful and abundant source of nutrients and microbes and energy for the majority of people. We are omnivores for a reason. A wide variety of plants and animal products is superior than just animal sources. We didn't evolve as strict ketogenic carnivores even if we have the ability to compensate and live as one. There is no evidence that that protocol is superior. The same argument can be made about veganism, only replace herbivore with carnivore.

Until then, I don't see why having more of the more nutritionally dense foods is a bad option.

You are making the assumption that if some is good, then all must be best. I think you are extrapolating that certain foods will always be processed and absorbed with absolute precision by every single person. I don't believe it works that way. A potato might be of more value than a platter of oysters to someone who needs particular micro- and macronutrients.

[Paleobird]

In case you're interested in anything outside your current mindset, I recommend the book "Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life" by Nora Gedgaudas. She makes a very convincing argument that the greatest part of humanity's evolution has taken place during ice ages and therefor a diet of mostly animal products with supplemental veggies and fruits on the side now and then is really the optimal diet for our genetic makeup and ketosis would have been the default metabolic state most of the time. The fact that we are omnivores and can live on many different macronutrient ratios just means we are flexible enough to make it through times when the hunt didn't go well.

There is no micronutrient that you can find in any plant that can not be found in greater concentration in animal products. What animals do is take the nutrients and process them for us into a much more bio available format.

And I didn't find a medicinal purpose for my particular diet. I found a diet that works for my medicinal needs. And just because I have epilepsy and find ketosis to be of great benefit to me does not meant that the only people who could benefit from it are people with serious medical issues.

But if you can't see past the Good Housekeeping diagram of a balanced meal plate with equal thirds taken up by a potato, veggies and a slice of meatloaf, then fine, eat what you like. I have never liked potatoes unless they were a delivery device for fat, salt, sour cream, etc. I like some veggies but not others. Given that I see no nutritional need for them, I only eat the ones I like. I find this tremendously liberating.

[Mangrove]

Nutrients - so what? Are they bound up in the fiber, making them unusable to humans? I have this gut feeling we aren't digesting tree bark very efficiently.

There have been at least two studies done on this topic, one with humans in 1917 and one with mice in 1979. Both of them agree that the nutrients in the bark are usable to humans and mice, but it is not advisable to receive more than e.g. 10 % of the daily energy requirements from the bark due to the resins and other ingredients left in the bark. Essentially this means that you are consuming the bark for its vitamins and minerals, not for the fats, proteins and carbohydrates.

Über den Nährwert der Fichtenbaumrinde beim Menschen (pg. 654-)

[magnolia1973]

From a "foodie" viewpoint, I'd be curious to know if pine bark flour offered any piney or unique flavor? I think for example, coconut flour has a unique flavor that lends it to some uses really nicely.

[magnolia1973]

In terms of Primal.... I think there are two kinds of people, those happier with a smaller range of foods, and those that prefer more variety. LOL, it's not a pissing contest about who can eat the smallest range of foods. If having a plate with meat and 2 sides that are actually good for you keeps a person from hitting McDonalds, it's fine.

I'm on day 10 of Whole 30.... it's limiting. I can deal with it for 30 days. But then I just want something like primal pancakes on day 31. The more foods we are aware of that add variety without toxins, the better we can stay compliant. For some people, the variety may not be desirable- maybe they flourish on meat and veggies.

At any rate, does it really matter if one fit, lean healthy person is having their burger on a pinebark or coconut flour bun, and the other fit lean healthy person is having their burger on a pile of spinach?

[sjmc]

In terms of Primal.... I think there are two kinds of people, those happier with a smaller range of foods, and those that prefer more variety. LOL, it's not a pissing contest about who can eat the smallest range of foods. If having a plate with meat and 2 sides that are actually good for you keeps a person from hitting McDonalds, it's fine.

I'm on day 10 of Whole 30.... it's limiting. I can deal with it for 30 days. But then I just want something like primal pancakes on day 31. The more foods we are aware of that add variety without toxins, the better we can stay compliant. For some people, the variety may not be desirable- maybe they flourish on meat and veggies.

At any rate, does it really matter if one fit, lean healthy person is having their burger on a pinebark or coconut flour bun, and the other fit lean healthy person is having their burger on a pile of spinach?

I get what you mean, but interestingly all your examples seem more about form than content. A person could eat all the makings of a primal pancake on a Whole 30, nuts, eggs, what have you (oops on me if that's false...), but they can't whiz it all up and call it a pancake (that's the "sex with your pants on", I think?). Anyway, the allowance or avoidance of pancakes and buns is a different kind of variety.

No point really, it's just that your examples struck me. Maybe it's your subconscious? = D

[ChocoTaco369]

There have been at least two studies done on this topic, one with humans in 1917 and one with mice in 1979. Both of them agree that the nutrients in the bark are usable to humans and mice, but it is not advisable to receive more than e.g. 10 % of the daily energy requirements from the bark due to the resins and other ingredients left in the bark. Essentially this means that you are consuming the bark for its vitamins and minerals, not for the fats, proteins and carbohydrates.

Über den Nährwert der Fichtenbaumrinde beim Menschen (pg. 654-)

Or you could eat actual human food to get the same or more vitamins and minerals without getting the "resins and other ingredients" in tree bark. I've been to a lot of different restaurants spanning cultures all over the world. I have yet to see bark on the menu. There's probably a reason.

[Mangrove]

I have yet to see bark on the menu. There's probably a reason.

Bark was on the menu of many of the people living up in the North for centuries. At 60 or 70 degrees north, you do not have that many choices during the winter time for nutrients, assuming the hunting does not succeed. So, I do not agree that bark could not be labeled as "human food". It is food as much as e.g insects are to the people living at the Equator.

[j3nn]

In case you're interested in anything outside your current mindset, I recommend the book "Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life" by Nora Gedgaudas. She makes a very convincing argument that the greatest part of humanity's evolution has taken place during ice ages and therefor a diet of mostly animal products with supplemental veggies and fruits on the side now and then is really the optimal diet for our genetic makeup and ketosis would have been the default metabolic state most of the time. The fact that we are omnivores and can live on many different macronutrient ratios just means we are flexible enough to make it through times when the hunt didn't go well.

But it's not, is it? I'd argue that the use of fire to cook our foods is the greatest contribution to our evolution.

We have never had a carnivorous digestive track, nor did we evolve as primarily hunters from day one. We evolved from mostly vegetarian primates to meat-eating omnivores to digest meat, not the other way around, and not o e extreme to another. We didn't go from herbivore to carnivore, we went from herbivore (primate relatives) to omnivore. We have never been physiological carnivores, so how could a carnivorous diet be optimal to our evolution? Convenient does not equal optimal. We evolved to survive, but survive does not equal thrive. Historically, there has never been an abundance of nose-to-tail foods like there is today. The same argument about eating animals can be made; "we ate animals when plants were scarce."

There is no micronutrient that you can find in any plant that can not be found in greater concentration in animal products. What animals do is take the nutrients and process them for us into a much more bio available format.

Because historically, humans always had this luxury at their disposal?!