18

votes

Why are so many people eating so much meat??

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Hi there,

So I am new to Paleo, and have been doing a lot of research to make sure that I am making the right choice by switching to a Paleo lifestyle. I think i've figured out a lot of things, but I just want to make sure I am on the right lines here?

From what I can gather, it seems that:

(1) the balance between omega 3/omega 6 is vital - so as to stop inflammation and therefore 'diseases of civilisation' (2) by avoiding Grains/Dairy/Legume means you avoid inflammation

So, I understand that no inflammation within the body = good health

BUT, what I don't understand is why so many people seem to be basing their Paleo diets around meat when they are high in omega 6's? And, when looking at studies of the Kitavans, they eat a lot of fish (i.e. a lot of omega 3) and rarely any proper meat (occasional wildfowl).

I know they are only an example, but it is a source of confusion to me as to why everyone is eating so much meat?

Also, with regards to fat (specifically saturated fat), I think that a Paleo diet does need these fats but not from animal sources.

So, yes my question is why are there so many Paleo people focussing their diet around meat when surely it should be around vegetables/fruits/tubers etc? Thanks!

4303a65967884e68bfae59817c227351

(1881)

on May 01, 2012
at 09:24 AM

Meat (especially industrial grain crammed sick animals) CAN be linked to heart disease. . .in the presence of inflammation. When you ingest the inflammatory factors in our diet (non-paleo food) that stress our body, that's when we see cholesterol find it's way into strange places causing problems. As for cancer, like red meat causes liver/pancreas/colon whatever cancer. It's the same deal. Low level toxicity for many years by things we're not designed to eat, will definitely do that. Will ingesting a fraction of mercury going to kill you? I very highly doubt it. Daily for 2+ decades? Possibly.

4303a65967884e68bfae59817c227351

(1881)

on May 01, 2012
at 09:20 AM

Meat (especially industrial grain crammed sick animals) CAN be linked to heart disease. . . in the presence of inflammation. When you eliminate the inflammatory factors in our diet that stress our body, that's when we see cholesterol find it's way into strange places, and causing problems. As for cancer, like red meat causes liver/pancreas/colon whatever cancer. It's the same deal. Low level toxicity for many years by things we're not designed to eat, will definitely do that. Will ingesting a fraction of mercury going to kill you? I very highly doubt it. Daily for 2+ decades? Probably.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 30, 2012
at 04:33 PM

@ Adroitus, Chris Kresser talks about it at his site.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 30, 2012
at 05:56 AM

What it suggests is that some hunter-gatherers ate more plants than other hunter-gatherers and all seem to have faired quite well.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 30, 2012
at 03:25 AM

Yes! I love it when "researchers" say that people overeat too much fat. I have never finished a ribeye steak wanting more ribeye steak.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 30, 2012
at 01:16 AM

Good thing I don't have FODMAPS-intolerance then!

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on April 30, 2012
at 01:12 AM

Those of us with FODMAPS-intolerance would likely have a problem with all those veggies. Liver, other organ meats & bone broth deliver the nutrients just as well.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on April 30, 2012
at 01:05 AM

Amen! Also, I find meat so satiating that it is self-limiting in my case.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 10:44 PM

Re: #1: just because we have adapted to and can eat tons of meat, doesn't mean that it's optimal. Re: #2: PUFAs aren't really an issue until you start consuming seed oils.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:07 PM

Excellent point #3. Inuit populations ate almost nothing but animal foods. Not that they are any better an example than the Kitavans, but it just goes to show what a range we humans can operate within.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:55 PM

But I agree that meat is overemphasized jsut because this supposedly cavemen's diet. Meat, fish, pork, yes. Tubers, greens, veggies, berries. Limited eggs, dairy and nuts. Safe grains like white rice.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:53 PM

Omega 6/3 ratio is a bit overrated. If you stop eating grains and do moderate carbs, your inflammation goes down. The omega 6/3 ratio will take a while to go down, due to built-up reserves. But grass-fed meat eating isn't designed to reverse those ratios: fish oil supplementing is for that. The purpose of meat eating is really for appetite control: it flattens out your insulin and makes you feel full, not making you insatiable for more Neolithic packaged food products that constantly whet your appetite.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:49 PM

I agree, intermitten meat eating has the same theory as intermitten fasting. On the other hand, it woulda been easier to catch more than 1 fish per day. So more fish, less meat, more tubers, more veggies. I agree with that. Portioned meat servings every meal would have been impractical. The Kitavans would never have had access to large, land-based animals. It was fish for them, and not fatty fish as they were tropical.

7d3a7b532811b6cfa2de09acdf52d145

(610)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:38 PM

@Adroitus: or an overreaction, because meat is 'very bad' in the SAD, and 'very good' in the paleo diet, people tend to sort of compensate and eat lots of meat daily when they start the paleo diet, instead of just enjoying a regular piece of meat.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:31 PM

Protein AND fat :)

C0c00a236586bdd3ccad87d21cac3de2

(30)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:25 PM

There may be some selection bias at work, too. One of the main features of the Paleo diet is the renewed acceptance of previously forbidden foods, e.g. red meat. Before, it was good tasting and highly desirable, but supposedly not good for you. In fact, only eggs and butter got a worse reputation than red meat. With Paleo, now red meat is not harmful, and it has been shown that meat from animals eating and living in the way they evolved to live is healthy. That's big news, and one of the best features of eating Paleo and one of the things that is easiest to promote.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:18 PM

I totally agree. +1 for quality v. quantity.

C0c00a236586bdd3ccad87d21cac3de2

(30)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:18 PM

That's an interesting point about the veggies without fats, m'Lady. Where did you get that information? I'm not questioning it, I want to read the whole story about it.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:17 PM

I probably consume between 1/4 lb and 1/3 lb most days (sometimes more, but that's average). I think seasonal eating allows for a lot of variation. I eat far less meat in the summer when I have access to raw fruits and veggies, more in the winter when all I have is meat and storage crops. I think it's another case of "it depends on the person". I know some people do well on tons of meat, but I don't generally. I do know when I've not had enough, like you--cravings, etc. I just kind of go with it. Intuitive eating is nice.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:14 PM

Actually, I think another book to add would be Weston A. Price's book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." There are many, many traditional diets, and even lots of variation between the hunter-gatherer societies. The take-away I got from reading through it was that there are a couple of major issues: 1) sugar/white flour/veg oils are really bad; and 2) SOME animal protein and fat is absolutely necessary for good health. I suppose that aligns a little with the Archevore thing. I think there's a lot of wiggle room depending on personal situation in there. But the major stuff is the same.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:12 PM

The difference in consumption for men and women- fat is more important for the difference, I'd think.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:11 PM

This is one of the best points on this thread.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:10 PM

Yeah, I eat very similar to Nance, and I don't think anyone would remark about the amount of meat I eat- it seems pretty "average" to me when you consider that I don't eat grains. I eat beef and fish mainly, but don't really think about it- just eat what I feel like, when I feel like it.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:04 PM

FYI: a cave dweller in Russia would have more fish than anybody else. Russia has more than 2 million rivers, and this is not counting lakes and tributaries. There is a river or a lake within walking distance, just so you know.

7d3a7b532811b6cfa2de09acdf52d145

(610)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:39 PM

I also don't think meat is *the* way. I eat meat regularly, several times a week, and try to vary: chicken liver, beef heart, chickenbreast and different parts of the cow, and if I have the money I would defenitly incorporate other animals. And my main dish is fish (herring, mackerel, salmon, and a few others) that are low on the 'toxic scale'. And a lot of vegetables, 2 to 4 pieces of fruit a day, 2 eggs a day and occacionally nuts. That seems to me like a reasonable and balanced diet, no too much focused on 1 kind of food but as much variety as possible.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:32 PM

yep! We can each pick our own and be right--for our own body.

276a5e631b62f8e0793987c0496364bb

(1644)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:25 PM

@jen_paleo: Meat has never been linked to any "cancers etc" except by shit that doesn't even qualify as science.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:07 PM

Thinking for yourself is always good, jen. So pull up your Google Scholar and start reading older anthropological papers that report how various remaining hunter/gatherers lived before modern society "helped them develop" and well-meaning governments forced them to settle.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:02 PM

Jessica, there are plenty of studies from the mid-60s of groups like the !Kung that show daily meat-eating. [Tanaka, 1980] And Native Americans also ate daily meat in dried form. The effects of modern life have altered the !Kung; and recent anthropological revisionism have tried to paint these societies as veggie. As much as it may shock you, humans with spears are and have been successful top predators for millions of years. We're not weak failures, unable to hunt. Eat as you like; just don't tell me your opinion is scientific evidence and dismiss our success out of hand. :)

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:51 PM

If you don't want to eat red meat, then don't. But be careful about how you look at "associations". Fish may not be associated with illness, and red meat has been. But people who eat red meat are more likely to smoke, drink, and eat like shit overall, so it's not surprising in the least that there's an "association" of eating red meat and getting sick. But there is nothing CAUSAL here whatsoever. And that's the problem with the current way of thinking. So give it a try both says, see what happens for you. You can certainly go red-meat-free, but you most definitely do not have to.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:49 PM

Nance, I don't think anybody would call that amount as too much. What you eat seems like a very reasonable amount to support optimal health. At least, that's my take.

1133603ea602c6824da56e8b596c9754

(614)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:46 PM

I see your point about fish. I agree that fish should be a player in the protein department, but I don't believe anything has been proven about red meat and cancer. Charred meat is a problem though, regardless of what kind.

35b2cb4d450e5288895c255dfdfff35d

(5828)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:38 PM

@jen_paleo. You have to be very careful with those studies that condemn meat. There are lots of studies that show that when you take someone off a crappy diet then they get healthier. These studies often associate meat with crappy fats, crappy carbs, and processed foods. They incorrectly conclude that taking the meat out of the diet was important in improving health.

05ce60d425d69bf47002fe66287931d0

(187)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:35 PM

i have been doing some reading, but am just drawing some of my own conclusions and questions from that..such as - would hunter/gatherers really have had access to red meat daily? fish is a food that is never associated with causing people to become ill, whilst red meat is? and i am not just hopping on the bandwagon, i want to live in a way that is closer to how we human beings began, and now i've finally found other people who want the same! the science is sound i think with regards to the grains/dairy/legumes.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:32 PM

There's not a big difference between PUFA levels in grass-fed vs grain-fed cattle. The difference is that grass-fed cows have a higher level of omega-3 fats. Doesn't make a huge difference since cows are low in PUFA to begin with.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:28 PM

Grassfed beef isn't high in Omega 3, it has about the same amount as CAFO beef. The benefit is that it has considerably **less** omega 6, providing a much better balance of omegas.

8d454fc50d6d58643d6f8b0d1e7ea8ea

(2830)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Exactly. I was wondering the same thing. Ample meat 3x daily? Likely not for hunter/gatherers.

05ce60d425d69bf47002fe66287931d0

(187)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:26 PM

but what i don't understand is why so many people are eating red meat when it has been linked so many times to different cancers etc? whereas you never hear about fish causing these problems...

05ce60d425d69bf47002fe66287931d0

(187)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:19 PM

i agree that red meat is paleo. but i just thought that when we were back in the hunter/gatherer age we probably wouldn't be flooring a cow every day to eat. so i thought perhaps every once in a blue moon would red meat be on the menu.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:01 PM

You need to read some more. If you are seriously questioning the health benefits of animal flesh in the human diet you definitely need to read more. I'm not sure what "so much meat" means but I eat very little but some everyday. The paleo template does not prescribe an amount to eat and everyone must make that decision for themselves. You can certainly be paleo without red meat but eating red meat absolutely is paleo.

A97b68379a576dfa764a4828304d2efb

(4181)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:00 PM

I'm upvoting this out of downvote world because she asked the question in a fair way and not just to foment controversy!

  • 05ce60d425d69bf47002fe66287931d0

    asked by

    (187)
  • Views
    6.5K
  • Last Activity
    1283D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

19 Answers

best answer

20
Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:54 PM

Many ways to do paleo.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:32 PM

yep! We can each pick our own and be right--for our own body.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:11 PM

This is one of the best points on this thread.

13
246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:34 PM

1.Because we owe our larger brains to the fact that we adapted to eat it.

2.Because the Omega 6/3 issue isn't an issue at all if you source your meat properly.

3.Because the Kitavans are one people that have adapted to a more pescatarian diet, but there are many HG's and many more peoples of the Paleolithic that have eaten minimal vegetable matter and thrived, if anything the Kitavans are not an example of what you can't eat, but of what you can (and how awesome we are as a species to adapt to practically anything).

4.Because it tastes good, is fairly accessible, and most importantly is a whole food.

5.Because with the exception of coconuts, saturated fat is very rare in the plant kingdom.

I literally could come up with about 50 of these answers, but I kept it to the issues you addressed specifically. I am one of those "lotsa meat" guys, but that's because I have experimented with several ways of eating and continually go back to the most successful way for me.

It is not about mimicry or recreation of modern HG's or even persons in the Paleolithic, it's about eating to survive.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:07 PM

Excellent point #3. Inuit populations ate almost nothing but animal foods. Not that they are any better an example than the Kitavans, but it just goes to show what a range we humans can operate within.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 10:44 PM

Re: #1: just because we have adapted to and can eat tons of meat, doesn't mean that it's optimal. Re: #2: PUFAs aren't really an issue until you start consuming seed oils.

9
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:12 PM

I do think many paleo folks eat more meat than is necessary for meeting nutritional requirements, referring to those who eat 1, 2, 3+ pounds of meat per day. Protein, vitamin, mineral needs can be mostly met with maybe 1/2 pound or so per day. Fill in with a good amount of vegetable matter and you're well over 100% in all nutrients. Then it's a matter of filling in with starches and fats to get your energy up to the necessary amount.

I end up eating 8-12 ounces of animal product (meat or eggs) daily, 1-2 pounds of veggies, and 2-3 ounces of added fats. That covers nutritional bases (macro and micro) as well as providing adequate energy.

It's about quality, not quantity. I think folks forget that at times, or just twist it to feed their appetites.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:18 PM

I totally agree. +1 for quality v. quantity.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on April 30, 2012
at 01:12 AM

Those of us with FODMAPS-intolerance would likely have a problem with all those veggies. Liver, other organ meats & bone broth deliver the nutrients just as well.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 30, 2012
at 01:16 AM

Good thing I don't have FODMAPS-intolerance then!

7
Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

on April 29, 2012
at 09:35 PM

If you think meat was hard to come by, just imagine trying to gather enough fruit and veg in a pre-agricultural world. We are social creatures, the hunt was a large part of that development, and it didn't even need to be successful every day. Unless you are really suggesting that everyone eats a whole cow every day. We ate our fill when we killed an animal, developed preservation methods, and filled in the gaps where necessary. But in general, people eating a lot of meat (with the fat) don't need to eat every day, much less several meals a day.

For me, proper meat is all good with no unpleasant side-effects. It's the first thing on the plate, and often the only thing. Oh, and good luck getting fats from non-animal sources.

6
A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

on April 29, 2012
at 05:25 PM

I would suggest that you do some reading on the subject so you can get a better understanding of what the point of all this really is. Sounds like you're still hung up on certain myths of the SAD, and it's important to really dissect these things and begin to develop an understanding of where all of this originates.

The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf

The Paleo Diet and/or The Paleo Answer by Loren Cordain

The Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

Just some places to start, but if you're just hopping on the bandwagon because it sounds trendy and not because you actually agree with the science won't get you very far. Forget everything you think you know, and start again from scratch! Welcome to a better life! ;)

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:14 PM

Actually, I think another book to add would be Weston A. Price's book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." There are many, many traditional diets, and even lots of variation between the hunter-gatherer societies. The take-away I got from reading through it was that there are a couple of major issues: 1) sugar/white flour/veg oils are really bad; and 2) SOME animal protein and fat is absolutely necessary for good health. I suppose that aligns a little with the Archevore thing. I think there's a lot of wiggle room depending on personal situation in there. But the major stuff is the same.

05ce60d425d69bf47002fe66287931d0

(187)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:35 PM

i have been doing some reading, but am just drawing some of my own conclusions and questions from that..such as - would hunter/gatherers really have had access to red meat daily? fish is a food that is never associated with causing people to become ill, whilst red meat is? and i am not just hopping on the bandwagon, i want to live in a way that is closer to how we human beings began, and now i've finally found other people who want the same! the science is sound i think with regards to the grains/dairy/legumes.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:07 PM

Thinking for yourself is always good, jen. So pull up your Google Scholar and start reading older anthropological papers that report how various remaining hunter/gatherers lived before modern society "helped them develop" and well-meaning governments forced them to settle.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:51 PM

If you don't want to eat red meat, then don't. But be careful about how you look at "associations". Fish may not be associated with illness, and red meat has been. But people who eat red meat are more likely to smoke, drink, and eat like shit overall, so it's not surprising in the least that there's an "association" of eating red meat and getting sick. But there is nothing CAUSAL here whatsoever. And that's the problem with the current way of thinking. So give it a try both says, see what happens for you. You can certainly go red-meat-free, but you most definitely do not have to.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:49 PM

I agree, intermitten meat eating has the same theory as intermitten fasting. On the other hand, it woulda been easier to catch more than 1 fish per day. So more fish, less meat, more tubers, more veggies. I agree with that. Portioned meat servings every meal would have been impractical. The Kitavans would never have had access to large, land-based animals. It was fish for them, and not fatty fish as they were tropical.

1133603ea602c6824da56e8b596c9754

(614)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:46 PM

I see your point about fish. I agree that fish should be a player in the protein department, but I don't believe anything has been proven about red meat and cancer. Charred meat is a problem though, regardless of what kind.

6
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:06 PM

I don't think I eat "so much" meat. I eat 1/2 lb of meat many days and closer to a pound some days. I eat generous amounts of fruit and raw/cooked vegetables although probably less tubers than some describe.

It's about finding what you need at a given time. If I feel more hunger for meat than usual, I probably didn't eat enough meat yesterday. If I'm not hungry for meat I don't eat any. I pretty much do the same with vegetables--some days I eat tons and the next I might eat only a few. For whatever reason, I'm always hungry for fruit although some days I want more than others.

From month to month or season to season my food mix can vary widely. My staple meat is definitely beef with only a little poultry and fish because I clearly thrive on beef more than the others.

I consider my approach a moderate one and I know many other PH regulars who are comfortable with their personal routines--which may be very like mine or very different.

E36cb992cf0a5eba8b97a359c15f38b3

(4347)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:17 PM

I probably consume between 1/4 lb and 1/3 lb most days (sometimes more, but that's average). I think seasonal eating allows for a lot of variation. I eat far less meat in the summer when I have access to raw fruits and veggies, more in the winter when all I have is meat and storage crops. I think it's another case of "it depends on the person". I know some people do well on tons of meat, but I don't generally. I do know when I've not had enough, like you--cravings, etc. I just kind of go with it. Intuitive eating is nice.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:10 PM

Yeah, I eat very similar to Nance, and I don't think anyone would remark about the amount of meat I eat- it seems pretty "average" to me when you consider that I don't eat grains. I eat beef and fish mainly, but don't really think about it- just eat what I feel like, when I feel like it.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:49 PM

Nance, I don't think anybody would call that amount as too much. What you eat seems like a very reasonable amount to support optimal health. At least, that's my take.

5
F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:15 PM

I see a few apologists here, and I just want to add that I unapologetically eat a ton of meat. I eat meat at almost every meal, and I try to rotate them for a variety. Bacon, sausage, eggs, beef, bison, pork, chicken, lamb. A bit of fish, but I need to eat more.

I do it because it works. Because I'm never hungry. Because I enjoy it. Because it tastes damn good.

I'm not one of those folks out for optimization. I don't care what studies say about cancers. Since we can't even come close to recreating the environment our ancestors had access to, I try to do the best I can intuitively with what we have available today.

Besides, HGs would have eaten meat at every meal if they could. When they had a large kill, it likely fed the group for a long time, and you bet your sweet bippy they ate it at every opportunity. They knew that animal foods meant survival, the best kind of survival. And because meat meant survival, I highly doubt our bodies have a shut-off valve for it. There's no such thing as "too much meat."

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 30, 2012
at 03:25 AM

Yes! I love it when "researchers" say that people overeat too much fat. I have never finished a ribeye steak wanting more ribeye steak.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on April 30, 2012
at 01:05 AM

Amen! Also, I find meat so satiating that it is self-limiting in my case.

5
F1b82cc7e6d90384ad30007dd6c1b9e3

(1187)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:20 PM

I don't by organic, grass fed meat, but I still feel so much better. Getting rid of the grains, sugar, and legumes is a huge plus for any diet. I eat a lot of meat because it doesn't make be bloated and tired. I eat salads most days and a lot of eggs with butter. So, I eat meat whenever I can because it tames my cravings. Yes, meat is the central focus.

05ce60d425d69bf47002fe66287931d0

(187)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:26 PM

but what i don't understand is why so many people are eating red meat when it has been linked so many times to different cancers etc? whereas you never hear about fish causing these problems...

276a5e631b62f8e0793987c0496364bb

(1644)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:25 PM

@jen_paleo: Meat has never been linked to any "cancers etc" except by shit that doesn't even qualify as science.

35b2cb4d450e5288895c255dfdfff35d

(5828)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:38 PM

@jen_paleo. You have to be very careful with those studies that condemn meat. There are lots of studies that show that when you take someone off a crappy diet then they get healthier. These studies often associate meat with crappy fats, crappy carbs, and processed foods. They incorrectly conclude that taking the meat out of the diet was important in improving health.

4303a65967884e68bfae59817c227351

(1881)

on May 01, 2012
at 09:20 AM

Meat (especially industrial grain crammed sick animals) CAN be linked to heart disease. . . in the presence of inflammation. When you eliminate the inflammatory factors in our diet that stress our body, that's when we see cholesterol find it's way into strange places, and causing problems. As for cancer, like red meat causes liver/pancreas/colon whatever cancer. It's the same deal. Low level toxicity for many years by things we're not designed to eat, will definitely do that. Will ingesting a fraction of mercury going to kill you? I very highly doubt it. Daily for 2+ decades? Probably.

4303a65967884e68bfae59817c227351

(1881)

on May 01, 2012
at 09:24 AM

Meat (especially industrial grain crammed sick animals) CAN be linked to heart disease. . .in the presence of inflammation. When you ingest the inflammatory factors in our diet (non-paleo food) that stress our body, that's when we see cholesterol find it's way into strange places causing problems. As for cancer, like red meat causes liver/pancreas/colon whatever cancer. It's the same deal. Low level toxicity for many years by things we're not designed to eat, will definitely do that. Will ingesting a fraction of mercury going to kill you? I very highly doubt it. Daily for 2+ decades? Possibly.

5
Medium avatar

(2923)

on April 29, 2012
at 04:56 PM

1) Because meat is much higher in saturated fat (good fat) than polyunsaturated fat (bad fat). (Although pork is an interesting oddball - very high in monounsaturated fat (another good fat).)

2) Your source of meat matters. Conventional CAFO grain fed beef is low in Omega 3, high in Omega 6. And this holds for caged chicken, caged pork, farmed fish. Grass fed beef is the reverse, high in Omega 3, low in Omega 6. This applies to other animals as well: pastured fowl, pastured pork (harder to find), wild game, and wild fish.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:32 PM

There's not a big difference between PUFA levels in grass-fed vs grain-fed cattle. The difference is that grass-fed cows have a higher level of omega-3 fats. Doesn't make a huge difference since cows are low in PUFA to begin with.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:28 PM

Grassfed beef isn't high in Omega 3, it has about the same amount as CAFO beef. The benefit is that it has considerably **less** omega 6, providing a much better balance of omegas.

4
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:45 PM

Some of us eat "so much meat" because some of us find that it works well for us. Many of us have experimented with various paleo and non paleo diets before finding what works. If coconuts, yams and fish worked better for me, I would be eating more of those instead.

The important thing is to find what works for you rather than just do what works for some diet book author or some isolated people on a small island somewhere.

3
1d9af5db8833413037be3ac48964714f

on April 29, 2012
at 11:11 PM

Because it tastes good, it's good for you, and I don't know of a good reason NOT to eat it.

2
E7e7e1c856d4494d4a1b700b6869df90

(982)

on April 29, 2012
at 11:11 PM

as others have asked/commented..what is "so much" meat. I may eat 8 oz of a meat a day at most. I like meat. I always have even though I was a vegetarian during my hippie youth.

Personally I will eat meat red and white....long before I would choose anything that comes out of our horribly polluted and toxic dump grounds that once were our glorious oceans.

I have barely eaten any fish/ocean food most of my life..why? (I am now 60..so I have felt this way for at least 50 years..)although I did eat some for a number of years..because you really do not need to be a scientist of any kind to realize how bad it is.."in spite" of what governments/health authorities say. ( I do eat canned pacific wild caught salmon maybe 4-5 servings yr.)Why..only for some level of variety...not because I believe it is so healthy.

Not so long ago they said all fish was completely safe..then only a few years ago they were warning about mercury levels in tuna.

why don't they test and say more about our polluted waters..?? the same reason they do not negate the grains..it all has to do with corrupt government and agrifood giants. This is the absolute truth. If they start to say fish is toxic they will destroy the huge fisheries industry and the millions of people that are still fish eating cultures will have nothing to eat.

Agri giants food and drug cartels that they are...will lie, fight and cheat to maintain their status. But that status quo is being challenged. Thank goodness for the internet.

I will take beef/pork/lamb/ anyday over fish and seafood.

This issue is not yet talked about..but it is coming!!

Re the fats..if it has not been mentioned read Gary Taubes Good Calories-Bad Calories and as others have said there is much misinformation and mistruth and plain pure ignorance and band wagon thought on fat and types of fat.

Do you really think even our recent ancesters of several hundred to a 100 years ago threw away any animal part including fat?? Fat is a "treasured" source of energy. It is agri giants that have promoted grain based and made up "nutritious grain based diets even for our carnivore pets!!! They care not a whit about health.

Common sense!! How can butter possibly ever be better than margarine..yet that drivel was fed to a nation!!!.

link textCrisco replaces lard..and trans fat..(oh so healthy...(NOT)..are born.)

1]: http://garytaubes.com/2011/03/dose-of-intervention-land-of-dr-oz/

2
F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:59 PM

I was wondering this myself. When you read some of the answers, it looks almost as if most people here are Inuits :)

I personally do not eat too much meat. I eat it when I feel like it, which varies. First of all, I am not a man, and men need more protein then women.

Secondly, I eat fish twice a week. I like fish and I think it is healthy.

I also believe in power of veggies. Some people here have a bad perception of Terry Wahls but I love her suggestions. I do eat 9 cups of veggies every single day, and I will continue to do so.

I try to eat some protein with every meal or at least twice per day.

If I feel hungry, I add more protein to my diet.

So, as somebody pointed out to you, Paleo is different for everyone. To me, if a person is eating meat instead of eating chocolate cake, it is already a step in the right direction.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:31 PM

Protein AND fat :)

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:12 PM

The difference in consumption for men and women- fat is more important for the difference, I'd think.

2
8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

on April 29, 2012
at 05:52 PM

Very few people are doing all-meat diets - those that do have their reasons.

Don't confuse protein and fat. An ancestral diet is typically a high fat diet 40-60% and those fats can come from a many sources: coconut oil/cream/, butter/ghee/cream (for those tolerant to dairy), lard (pork), tallow (beef, or other red meat), fish skin, poultry skin, avocado, palm oil etc.

Most people try to eat a variety of fats for taste and because you obtain different nutrition from a variety of fats.

Protein can vary between 10-20% typically.

Animal fats contain preformed Vitamin A, D, and K2 and these vitamins are fat soluble - Mother Nature intended them to be consumed that way and that's how they are best absorbed. Chris Masterjohn and Weston Price have written well on those vitamins that work synergistically together.

Steamed veggies without any fat or salads with non-fat dressing - you're wasting your money because your body will absorb less than 20% of the vitamins.

Higher omega 6 is mainly found in poultry and pork, so most eating an ancestral way support getting the majority of the fats from 100% pastured ruminants (ie beef, lamb, goat, bison, etc.) and wild fish (salmon, sardines, etc.).

As far as the Kitavans, while they are far better then SAD, and we can learn a lot from them- they are not optimal! Even Dr. Lindeberg suggests the high rate of ovarian cancer among the Kitava is connected with high intake of wild yam which has diosgenin (endocrine disruptor with contraceptive properties).

C0c00a236586bdd3ccad87d21cac3de2

(30)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:18 PM

That's an interesting point about the veggies without fats, m'Lady. Where did you get that information? I'm not questioning it, I want to read the whole story about it.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on April 30, 2012
at 04:33 PM

@ Adroitus, Chris Kresser talks about it at his site.

1
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on April 29, 2012
at 08:57 PM

This is a great question and this article will give you some reinforcement. It suggests that most of our paleolithic ancestors relied heavily on a plant based diet, and were more opportunistic hunters. Not only that, but that the meat they did consume was substantially leaner than today's meat.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/665.full

IT is helpful for me to think of humans mo re as sophisticated apes, or vegetarians who meat, rather than carnivores who eat vegetables.

that being said, I train a lot with heavy weights and am active, so I choose to include a lean protein with all of my meals.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 30, 2012
at 05:56 AM

What it suggests is that some hunter-gatherers ate more plants than other hunter-gatherers and all seem to have faired quite well.

1
5a44ddf35ab962b11a375b94f3e7e800

(175)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:44 PM

Good questions really :) I agree that hunting failure would be a regular event, and we probably scavenged or "gathered" small mammals, game birds, insects etc.

But moving away from our globalised modern society - a cave dweller in Russia wouldn't be anywhere near the seaside to get fish, but may well find a herd of moose...

For our convenience, meat is a highly concentrated source of nutrients, but I would balance that with eating skin, gelatin, bone broth etc - not JUST muscle meat.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:04 PM

FYI: a cave dweller in Russia would have more fish than anybody else. Russia has more than 2 million rivers, and this is not counting lakes and tributaries. There is a river or a lake within walking distance, just so you know.

1
45ace03a0eff1219943d746cfb1c4197

(3661)

on April 29, 2012
at 05:26 PM

In my experience, though people talk about meat a lot, when you look more closely, you'll see they're eating a wide variety of foods within the Paleo framework. As has been mentioned already, the source of the protein makes a big difference when you're looking at fat composition. So we always aim for grass-fed, pastured meats when appropriate.

For many, though, just making the shift from grains, legumes, and heavily processed food, is a big, big deal. Sometimes a focus on the familiar is not just important, it's necessary.

1
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on April 29, 2012
at 04:54 PM

If you're eating grassfed meat, the ratios will be balanced anyway.

If you're eating conventional beef then 0.5kg per day will give you around 2g o6- not very much and easily balanced out with the odd bit of oily fish.

0
B41cdb2253976ba9b429dd608d02c21f

(1495)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:57 PM

I can tell you why I do...I'm not trying to eat like a caveman, I'm trying to eat what my body responds to. I'm very active and do a lot of weight training, so I need protein to help rebuild and repair muscle. I also need protein included every time I eat because I have had some insulin/blood sugar issues and the protein helps control that problem (in addition to lower carb, fat with each meal). I used to use sources of protein like whey, beans and dairy, so I needed to replace those. Replacing those with animal protein has proved to be beneficial for my body - I'm no longer near anemic (I used to only eat poultry and some fish as my animal protein sources). However, I do not binge on meat as some people following a caveman prescription do. The majority of my plate is always veggies...usually leafy greens. I do think some people take the caveman / Paleo template as an excuse to go overboard on eating meat.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!