3

votes

ranking of Paleo meats in an evolutionary sense?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created February 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM

I wonder if any paleo academic person has made a ranking of meats currently available in terms of how much does the current animal differ from its wild origin? For instance I understand that all fish (at least the ones fished in the oceans and rivers, not bred) is "almost" 100 % paleo (and I say almost because some suffer from mercury contamination) because the fish in itself, genetically has not changed at all in the 10k years since the start of agriculture. On the other hand, while grass fed cow is "a lot more paleo" than grain fed cow, any of the cows that we can have today is the result of thousands of years of neolithic selection and evolution of cows, that have thousands of years ago separated from its wild ancestor, the Eurasian Auroch. Something similar applies to chickens and porks, since they come from thousands of years of domesticated breds.

691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on February 14, 2011
at 06:02 PM

i just wanted to put our a best guess! it's an interesting question to discuss. what's the omega 3/6 ratio for wild boar?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on February 13, 2011
at 10:36 PM

Wild boar above fish, huh. I'd venture to guess that these guesses should be taken with several grains of salt. As long as it's a free-living animal, it's game (literally and figuratively). Anthropology can continue to sort out the ranking as fossil records and theories are ironed out.

E4b155f898e209391902792ec3c005f3

(220)

on February 13, 2011
at 10:07 PM

There is a huge amount of fishing resource just in the water that is less than 2m deep (ie accessible without boats). Think of all the reef and tidal flat habitat. These can be harvested by hand, by throw net, gill net, or by hook. Even so, a basic raft or canoe is no harder to invent than spear or other early weapons.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on February 13, 2011
at 06:27 PM

Id put this list fairly accurate, except id put wild boar above fish, with the caveat that grainfed anything is at the bottom of the list or right out the door.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on February 13, 2011
at 06:26 PM

this leads many of us to believe that Grassfed Ruminants were dominant in our diet. a Low omega 6 diet with plenty of GRASSFED ruminants will produce more than adequate omega 3 and a great ratio in healthy humans.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on February 13, 2011
at 06:25 PM

depends on where you live, and whether you believe that we evolved merely on shorelines or everywhere. but metabolically, attempting to live on just fish has issues, yet you can live incredibly well nose to tail on just grassfed ruminants.

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on February 13, 2011
at 04:32 AM

Mike why would you put fish after grass fed (but bred) ruminants?

461281c9092d3cb306b46831064e2fc4

on February 12, 2011
at 11:30 PM

I think Paleo Mom's point is meant to suggest that we co-evolved. This is an important point.

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on February 12, 2011
at 07:26 PM

of course we have changed, but one of the goals of paleo nutrition is to eat close to the way our pre-neolithic ancestors used to do

252ed9194eb033228513ddea9ddab012

(75)

on February 12, 2011
at 07:10 PM

Guess what -- we've changed in the last 10,000 years.

Frontpage book

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

3 Answers

1
691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on February 13, 2011
at 02:56 AM

I am guessing we'd start with game animals, then grass fed ruminants, then fish and shellfish, then hogs (would wild ones be considers grass fed or game?), then birds. You could put bugs in there somewhere too.

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on February 13, 2011
at 04:32 AM

Mike why would you put fish after grass fed (but bred) ruminants?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on February 13, 2011
at 10:36 PM

Wild boar above fish, huh. I'd venture to guess that these guesses should be taken with several grains of salt. As long as it's a free-living animal, it's game (literally and figuratively). Anthropology can continue to sort out the ranking as fossil records and theories are ironed out.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on February 13, 2011
at 06:27 PM

Id put this list fairly accurate, except id put wild boar above fish, with the caveat that grainfed anything is at the bottom of the list or right out the door.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on February 13, 2011
at 06:26 PM

this leads many of us to believe that Grassfed Ruminants were dominant in our diet. a Low omega 6 diet with plenty of GRASSFED ruminants will produce more than adequate omega 3 and a great ratio in healthy humans.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on February 13, 2011
at 06:25 PM

depends on where you live, and whether you believe that we evolved merely on shorelines or everywhere. but metabolically, attempting to live on just fish has issues, yet you can live incredibly well nose to tail on just grassfed ruminants.

691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on February 14, 2011
at 06:02 PM

i just wanted to put our a best guess! it's an interesting question to discuss. what's the omega 3/6 ratio for wild boar?

0
Medium avatar

on February 13, 2011
at 10:01 PM

There's no one monolithic paleo past. We have different ancestries, and thus while it might be consistent with a large percentage of the evolution of my line for me to eat, for example, rhinoceros because they may have hunted a large number of the woolly variety, it's not necessary in order to achieve good health.

Because we can observe that the meat of grass-fed steers is similar in nutrition to that of, say, elk, we can choose the more convenient source of flesh because pursuing only those species that are largely untouched by domestication is an exercise in diminishing returns.

I would wager that a diet consisting of a great diversity of animals, even if some of them are grass-fed but farmed, would result in better nutrition than if you were to eat 100% wild deer.

0
99ac392257e444e014be6d4da6a900e4

(1036)

on February 13, 2011
at 09:54 PM

I've been wondering about how fish fit into the paleo world. Hard to believe paleo man was able to do much ocean fishing. Salmon and other fresh water fish I would assume, but would've been tough to harvest bottom dwellers.

E4b155f898e209391902792ec3c005f3

(220)

on February 13, 2011
at 10:07 PM

There is a huge amount of fishing resource just in the water that is less than 2m deep (ie accessible without boats). Think of all the reef and tidal flat habitat. These can be harvested by hand, by throw net, gill net, or by hook. Even so, a basic raft or canoe is no harder to invent than spear or other early weapons.

Answer Question


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