9

votes

Dr Davis vs Paleo? That is, How often should we eat meat?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created April 19, 2010 at 2:49 AM

So a lot of us in the Paleo community love Dr Davis's blog.

Without using the word "Paleo", he seems to be taking Paleo head-on in his latest blog post:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/plant-based-or-animal-based.html

Uh-oh. I tend to buy in to the Paleo worldview. I also tend to buy in to Dr Davis' writings. They are usually compatible.

I don't know how to reconcile these here.

My instinct is to take Dr Davis' side - if only because, that's how I've been eating ever since I discovered paleo. But I always attributed it NOT to my lack of belief in paleo (I still thought Paleo was right) but my own psychological weaknesses preventing me overcoming practical hurdles that prevent me from implementing paleo more completely in my life. So I always thought it was my fault, not paleo's!

The best response I can think of is this: "Well, cave men would kill a boar occasionally, and then eat fruits and vegetables the rest of the time in-between. So, Dr Davis actually isn't criticizing paleo! In the paleolithic era, people did eat meat less frequently and then food like berries in-between kills - so he's being perfectly consistent, and the contemporary so-called 'paleos' who eat 42 strips of bacon per day and never lettuce aren't living up to the true, noble name of the paleo."

That response makes sense to me. So then, building on my hypothetical response, here is my follow-up question -- which is really the question implied by Dr Davis' original post, but not answered: how much meat should a modern paleo eat? (Lets assume, average weight, height, age, health, etc.) Should we pig out for dinner once per week and then eat fruits and veggies in-between? Should we have a meat dinner with some veggies and only veggies the rest of the day (ie, equivalent to a daily kill?) Should we (as Dr Davis recommends) eat mostly fruits and veggies and put a bit of meat here and there? Or.....?

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 27, 2010
at 01:26 AM

I like this remark and it's certainly true what you say... for a modern human! But on an evolutionary time scale, an animal learns what is or is not edible in its environment. Most of us modern, citified commoners have lost almost all knowledge of edible plants, and are comfortable only gathering berries. But lineages of paleolithic ancestors, living for tens of thousands of years (thousands of GENERATIONS of people) have plenty of time for trial and error to determine what makes good eats or not.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 27, 2010
at 01:23 AM

@Alan -- well, what can I say except, uh, YUM?

5de2fffda92c0bf2be7ede10cad55546

(1781)

on April 25, 2010
at 02:20 PM

@Matt, my "all meat" diet has plenty of lard, dripping, butter and cream in it. I couldn't imagine a steak without a big slab of butter on it. Try 2 raw eggs with a cup of cream in the shaker for a post workout drink. yum.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 22, 2010
at 02:53 AM

pfw: I've never been "confronted" by Lex Rooker but maybe he would invite me over for some raw ground organ meats, muscle and fat? again, to each his own.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 22, 2010
at 02:42 AM

Rick, no, trees? your reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply to my statement. I haven't been reading Davis' blog for too long; you may be right, but he doesn't speak against saturated fat in that post. Ambimorph... good luck with your all meat diet. Let me know where you are at in 5 years. Probably you'll be fine. But an all meat diet, especially if you are eating anything that resembles wild game and not grain fed agribusiness meat, is at best a moderate fat diet. 1 oz. of chuck = about 6.5 g protein and 2.5 g fat = 54% calories from protein and 46% fat. Myself, I get 60% fat calories.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 22, 2010
at 02:41 AM

Rick, no, trees? your reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply to my statement. I haven't been reading Davis' blog for too long; you may be right, but he doesn't speak against saturated fat in that post. Ambimorph... good luck with your all meat diet. Let me know where you are at in 5 years. Probably you'll be fine. But an all meat diet, especially if you are eating anything that resembles wild game and not grain fed agribusiness meat, is at best a moderate fat diet. 1 oz. of chuck = about 6.5 g protein and 2.5 g fat = 54% calories from protein and 46% fat. Myself, I get 60$ fat calories.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 20, 2010
at 01:06 AM

Nicole, that's not true. Grandmothers affect their offspring's success.

08ce57b1bbb3bda8e384234389c36d94

on April 20, 2010
at 12:24 AM

Not only do you self describe as eating rubbish, you spew it.

08ce57b1bbb3bda8e384234389c36d94

on April 20, 2010
at 12:23 AM

Not only do you slef describe as eating rubbish, you spew it.

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 08:45 PM

Dr. Davis' post is "spot on?" Dr. Davis is repeatedly demonizing saturated fat without cause, evading any and all reasonable challenges and requests for evidence. You seem to be doing the same. Where is the evidence? Do you really think we should eat like a bear because Native Americans considered the bear a "brother?" Many also referred to trees as their "parents," does that mean we need to photosynthesize?

6eb2812b40855ba64508cbf2dc48f1b6

(2119)

on April 19, 2010
at 07:54 PM

Evolution does not care if you live a long healthy live. You are evolved to reproduce, and nothing more.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on April 19, 2010
at 06:58 PM

This is a bit silly. For one thing, an all meat diet is not high-protein, it's high fat. "Paleo", if interpreted to mean eating only paleo foods is no less compatible with all-meat than with vegan, but if interpreted to mean what our ancestors probably ate, then the evidence seems to be that we ate mostly meat with some vegetables in emergencies. Anecdotally, I eat only meat, and I feel better than I ever have.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:34 PM

If you believe that a "too-high protein diet" leads to malabsorbtion of calcium and thyroid dysfunction, what exactly do you say when confronted with Lex Rooker?

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on April 19, 2010
at 04:38 PM

His suggestions seem a bit confused tbh, I don't see the logic to switching to feta cheese, which is just dairy fat + protein anyway, with less micronutrients than the meat he's in favour of replacing it with. If his point is really 'you need lots of plants, not just animal products' then his advice could really be incorporated by just adding a pile of low carb veg to the fried meat. As it stands, I don't know what he's supposed to oppose: too many calories, too much SFA, lack of nutrients in general, who knows?

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 03:10 PM

Dr. Davis indeed does seem to recommend the PUFA route. In this post, he advocates a bunch in the comments section. Notice no coconut, and meat not listed till the last. Given his aforementioned demonization of butter, this guy really does seem to think saturated fat is bad for us: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/genetic-vs-lifestyle-small-ldl.html

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 02:42 PM

Paleo people didn't have plans? I'm pretty sure they were filling the caves with pictures of their plans for the week :). I've seen lots of pictures of monstrous animals, but not too many of blackberries and squirrels.

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 02:36 PM

Hold on. We are talking about tiny (but yes, tasty) wild berries and "low-carb" vegetables-- which means low calorie. Sure, primitive man could nibble on a squirrel or the like when he missed on a hunt, or perhaps some wild tubers, but rest assured he was always aiming for that big kill. These little snacks were playing no part in his "evolution."

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on April 19, 2010
at 01:46 PM

That is so true, I don't know one person who tried Atkins that didn't triple or quadruple their veg intake. You need something to replace grains with, most people replace with veggies, not more meat.

08ce57b1bbb3bda8e384234389c36d94

on April 19, 2010
at 01:45 PM

Furthermore we should remember that during the paleolithic ice age a huge kill would tend to last a long time given the natural refrigeration available. And the kills were huge, check out what they hunted ---> http://macroevolution.narod.ru/Elasmotherium.jpg An Elasmotherium typically measured 8.9 ft high and 20 ft long and weighed up to 8 tons!!!

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on April 19, 2010
at 12:48 PM

That is true, I suppose everyone has their own personal influences on their thinking.

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on April 19, 2010
at 12:39 PM

Not necessarily, starchy tubers and some fruits are relatively calorie dense. But I see what your getting at and I'm not disputing it, I eat a lot of veggies and fruits myself, but there was a definite undercurrent of 'meat phobia' in Dr. Davis' post. Probably due to his vegetarian past. I mean recommending cheese as a superior choice to meat protein is a non-starter for me.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on April 19, 2010
at 12:15 PM

Remember that 50% of calories is a large volume of wild plants to a relatively small volume of animal. You can fit 1000 calories of beef on a plate. 1000 calories of carrots is a bucketfull.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 19, 2010
at 11:31 AM

If you wander in the mountains of Oregon, in late summer, you will find delicious native wild blueberries, salmonberries, and many other fine berries. Have you ever seen how a bear eats? How fat a bear can get before winter? I believe that, among the native Americans, bear was considered a brother; I can only assume that what a bear eats, paleolithic man would eat.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 19, 2010
at 11:28 AM

What this comment misses is the wide variety of greens that anyone can eat. If all you look for in a wilderness are the mature vegetables of plants, you miss all the wonderful stalks and leaves and roots. It is virtually guaranteed that green leafy things were regularly gathered and eaten by our ancestors; and they are extremely low carb. All of the veggies Davis discusses are low carb. The physiological benefits we derive from the micronutrient and antioxidant content of vegetables is virtual proof that we evolved eating these things regularly.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on April 19, 2010
at 08:24 AM

@Rick - I noticed the same phenomenon. Odd.

5de2fffda92c0bf2be7ede10cad55546

(1781)

on April 19, 2010
at 07:05 AM

Go on then Melissa, name 2 dozen off the top of your head. :-) But seriously, I agree but wild berries and the like have a very short season and are hard to get a decent feed of. Apples and bananas were small & tart. Tropical fruits are a bit different. Insects and small critters were excellent food. We must acknowledge how much we have modified the world with our tinkering.

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:14 AM

Especially wild huckleberries from the mountains of Idaho and Montana picked in the forests at 4500 feet in mid August. Just have to make a lot of noise to let the black and brown bears know you are harvesting their food!

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:08 AM

Especially wild huckleberries from the mountains of Idaho and Montana picked in the forests at 4500 feet in mid August. Just have to make a lot of noise to let the black and brown bears you are harvesting their food!

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:07 AM

Especially wild huckleberries from the mountains of Idaho and Montana picked in the forests at 4500 feet in mid August.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 04:41 AM

And people forget that there are things that aren't giant game, but aren't plants either. Fish, reptiles, small mammals, and insects are good eats :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 04:39 AM

I just wrote a post about this http://huntgatherlove.com/content/lords-chaos-i

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 04:38 AM

Right on seasonally, but wrong on small and sour. There are dozens of fruits I can name off the top of my head that are 100% wild and 1000% delicious.

5de2fffda92c0bf2be7ede10cad55546

(1781)

on April 19, 2010
at 04:19 AM

"Should we (as Dr Davis recommends) eat mostly fruits and veggies and put a bit of meat here and there?" Tell me what fruits and veggies you are going to find to eat in winter? I only eat once a day, a totally animal produce diet and have no hunger or need to eat "fruits and veggies the rest of the day".

  • 78ecfc8268ec58cdc189301f4b071088

    asked by

    (1670)
  • Views
    4.2K
  • Last Activity
    1409D AGO
Frontpage book

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

11 Answers

8
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 03:08 AM

Having had some conversation with Nassim Taleb I think the answer is: it should be random! Hunter-gathereres ate a random diet based on what they found. Hunting and foraging always has an element of gambling. I remember when I lived in Sweden and went out daily looking for the prized chanterelles and cloudberries. I was SO happy to find a cache of these treasures, but most days I had to settle for wild onions, nettles, lingonberries, and pine needle tea.

I don't have a paleo diet plan. If I see something at the farmer's market that looks good and fits under the basic paleo definition, I buy it. Some days I eat mostly meat, others I eat plants or fish. Having done both zero carb and raw vegan, I have no desire to sit at either extreme. Each leaves me feeling...lacking...if done for more than a few days.

Neither diet is one proved by ancient cultures. Inuit didn't just eat some hamburger from the grocery store- they ate a wide variety of various parts of hundreds of creatures and some plants if they found them ranging from berries to kelp. Even in the high arctic I was able to forage for berries and the people there are obsessed with them when they are in season. Lapplanders go out with buckets for hours looking for particular berries. I assume it's an ancestral habit.

Paleolithic people didn't have plans. I have enough to do lists and programs in my life, I don't need any more.

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 02:42 PM

Paleo people didn't have plans? I'm pretty sure they were filling the caves with pictures of their plans for the week :). I've seen lots of pictures of monstrous animals, but not too many of blackberries and squirrels.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 04:39 AM

I just wrote a post about this http://huntgatherlove.com/content/lords-chaos-i

5
C76eced60ac16a6a95551cf2f319820f

(401)

on April 19, 2010
at 01:41 PM

I don't get people's obsession with vegetables apart from the starchy ones: there's no calories in them! In England we get blackberries and wild strawberries, and plenty of inedible berries, I doubt I could eat more than 1000 calories before I got an incredible stomach ache!

As far as leafy greens go, I might find a wild lettuce and eat that (I don't know why, it certainly wouldn't be tasty) but then I may try the leaf of rhubarb and die! You need extensive knowledge of any region to know what will and won't kill you.

Animals are 'calorie dense', and I don't know of any meat that is going to kill me. On their own, leafy greens are not particularly pleasant, not even the modern ones. We don't have many wild nuts. By comparison to animals, plants are rubbish.

I still eat them though.

08ce57b1bbb3bda8e384234389c36d94

on April 20, 2010
at 12:24 AM

Not only do you self describe as eating rubbish, you spew it.

08ce57b1bbb3bda8e384234389c36d94

on April 20, 2010
at 12:23 AM

Not only do you slef describe as eating rubbish, you spew it.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 27, 2010
at 01:26 AM

I like this remark and it's certainly true what you say... for a modern human! But on an evolutionary time scale, an animal learns what is or is not edible in its environment. Most of us modern, citified commoners have lost almost all knowledge of edible plants, and are comfortable only gathering berries. But lineages of paleolithic ancestors, living for tens of thousands of years (thousands of GENERATIONS of people) have plenty of time for trial and error to determine what makes good eats or not.

5
A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

on April 19, 2010
at 11:49 AM

I posted a link to this paper in the comments of that article:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682

Although definitely not zero-carb by any measure, 75% of current hunter gatherer groups get over 50% of energy intake from animal sources.

I think vegetables are important but meat and offal is where the majority of nutrients come from.

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on April 19, 2010
at 12:39 PM

Not necessarily, starchy tubers and some fruits are relatively calorie dense. But I see what your getting at and I'm not disputing it, I eat a lot of veggies and fruits myself, but there was a definite undercurrent of 'meat phobia' in Dr. Davis' post. Probably due to his vegetarian past. I mean recommending cheese as a superior choice to meat protein is a non-starter for me.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on April 19, 2010
at 12:15 PM

Remember that 50% of calories is a large volume of wild plants to a relatively small volume of animal. You can fit 1000 calories of beef on a plate. 1000 calories of carrots is a bucketfull.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on April 19, 2010
at 12:48 PM

That is true, I suppose everyone has their own personal influences on their thinking.

4
5de2fffda92c0bf2be7ede10cad55546

(1781)

on April 19, 2010
at 04:06 AM

I think you are thinking about this all wrong. You are thinking about fruit and vegetables in modern terms. Fruit was very small, sour and only seasonally available. Likewise veggies were nothing like we have now and again not easy to get and depending on the area non-existent. I challenge you to go into your nearest wild area and live on what you can forage for. I'll bet you don't last a day. Kill a deer or pig and you eat well for days. I don't imagine fruit and vegetables were ever more that a lucky find and certainly never the bulk of the diet. Add to this the fact that modern fruit is bred to be so sweet it is really a candy bar from a tree and not something I'd eat very often at all.

5de2fffda92c0bf2be7ede10cad55546

(1781)

on April 19, 2010
at 07:05 AM

Go on then Melissa, name 2 dozen off the top of your head. :-) But seriously, I agree but wild berries and the like have a very short season and are hard to get a decent feed of. Apples and bananas were small & tart. Tropical fruits are a bit different. Insects and small critters were excellent food. We must acknowledge how much we have modified the world with our tinkering.

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:14 AM

Especially wild huckleberries from the mountains of Idaho and Montana picked in the forests at 4500 feet in mid August. Just have to make a lot of noise to let the black and brown bears know you are harvesting their food!

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 19, 2010
at 11:28 AM

What this comment misses is the wide variety of greens that anyone can eat. If all you look for in a wilderness are the mature vegetables of plants, you miss all the wonderful stalks and leaves and roots. It is virtually guaranteed that green leafy things were regularly gathered and eaten by our ancestors; and they are extremely low carb. All of the veggies Davis discusses are low carb. The physiological benefits we derive from the micronutrient and antioxidant content of vegetables is virtual proof that we evolved eating these things regularly.

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 02:36 PM

Hold on. We are talking about tiny (but yes, tasty) wild berries and "low-carb" vegetables-- which means low calorie. Sure, primitive man could nibble on a squirrel or the like when he missed on a hunt, or perhaps some wild tubers, but rest assured he was always aiming for that big kill. These little snacks were playing no part in his "evolution."

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:07 AM

Especially wild huckleberries from the mountains of Idaho and Montana picked in the forests at 4500 feet in mid August.

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:08 AM

Especially wild huckleberries from the mountains of Idaho and Montana picked in the forests at 4500 feet in mid August. Just have to make a lot of noise to let the black and brown bears you are harvesting their food!

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 19, 2010
at 11:31 AM

If you wander in the mountains of Oregon, in late summer, you will find delicious native wild blueberries, salmonberries, and many other fine berries. Have you ever seen how a bear eats? How fat a bear can get before winter? I believe that, among the native Americans, bear was considered a brother; I can only assume that what a bear eats, paleolithic man would eat.

6eb2812b40855ba64508cbf2dc48f1b6

(2119)

on April 19, 2010
at 07:54 PM

Evolution does not care if you live a long healthy live. You are evolved to reproduce, and nothing more.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 04:41 AM

And people forget that there are things that aren't giant game, but aren't plants either. Fish, reptiles, small mammals, and insects are good eats :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 20, 2010
at 01:06 AM

Nicole, that's not true. Grandmothers affect their offspring's success.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on April 19, 2010
at 04:38 AM

Right on seasonally, but wrong on small and sour. There are dozens of fruits I can name off the top of my head that are 100% wild and 1000% delicious.

3
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on April 19, 2010
at 02:51 PM

Dr Davis really doesn't make clear what he means, so it's impossible to work out whether his suggestions are sensible or not.

There's a huge difference between getting most of your calories from plants and getting most of your food from plants. Getting most of your energy from plant you are necessarily going to be getting getting a huge amount of calories from carbs or from PUFA (if you go the olive oil, nuts, avocado route). This is, I think, pretty uncontroversially a bad idea and contradicts Dr Davis' own advice. Getting most of your food from plant by volume conversely, is pretty easy and possibly quite sensible. I'll often eat half a kilogram of spinach in a day and yet this constitutes virtually none of my calorie intake (4.6% daily calories, 5g net carbs). I'm entirely open to the idea that large quantities of low calorie veg is optimal for health.

It's very misleading to call this eating ???mostly plants, with meat as a side??? though. Given that I think- for myself- around 100g protein and far less than 50g carb is optimal, it's obviously that there's a lot more meat in the diet than plant energy wise. The way I look at it is that most of my mostly meat-based nutrients (zinc, B12, iron etc) come from meat and most of my plant-based nutrients (magnesium, potassium, vitamin E etc). Even then most of my calories aren't coming from either meat or plants, they're coming from added fats (mostly SFA/MUFA). There's a great bit on Hyperlipid where Peter explains that in his casseroles the meat is just for show, it's the fat that he's eating.

It's also intuitively appealing (but wrong) to think that meat- sausages and bacon- are unnutritious compared to fruit and veg. The only thing wrong with sausages is the lack of meat in them, plain muscle meat compares favourably to most plants for vitamins and minerals, before you even start thinking about offal.

All the individual arguments of Davis' post seem quite mistaken to me. Taubes has rather derailed the fibre hypothesis (it's not without its uses, but it's by no means crucial). Polyphenols and flavanoids we know are a contentious area. Vitamin C, like fibre, we know might have its uses but is by no means essential on a genuinely LC diet (cf Steffanson). Vitamin K1 pales in comparison to K2, which would be rather undermined by having animal products only as a ???side??? (and certainly by ruling out butter). Tocotrienols, I suspect, fall into the same category of polyphenols/flavanoids/antioxidants in general, rather than being a particularly crucial compound. The acid load question is a controversial one, but I'm more convinced by Stephan, than Don that there's nothing in it.

Of course Davis' suggestion, whatever its merits, it rather undermined by the rather poor breakfasts he gives as recommended examples. Both his preferred breakfasts sound a recipe for lacking protein and getting 9g omega 6 in the first case. The high animal product breakfast he suggests is really a straw man- the only problem with sausages is their not containing enough meat!- a decent serving of fatty pork easily trumps his two meals for vitamins and minerals.

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 03:10 PM

Dr. Davis indeed does seem to recommend the PUFA route. In this post, he advocates a bunch in the comments section. Notice no coconut, and meat not listed till the last. Given his aforementioned demonization of butter, this guy really does seem to think saturated fat is bad for us: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/genetic-vs-lifestyle-small-ldl.html

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on April 19, 2010
at 04:38 PM

His suggestions seem a bit confused tbh, I don't see the logic to switching to feta cheese, which is just dairy fat + protein anyway, with less micronutrients than the meat he's in favour of replacing it with. If his point is really 'you need lots of plants, not just animal products' then his advice could really be incorporated by just adding a pile of low carb veg to the fried meat. As it stands, I don't know what he's supposed to oppose: too many calories, too much SFA, lack of nutrients in general, who knows?

3
0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f

(4645)

on April 19, 2010
at 01:37 PM

Please! When I went on Atkins- I eat more vegetables than I ever eat in my life- Atkins included a LOT of veggies in his diet program- it is the dieter that failed to eat them.

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on April 19, 2010
at 01:46 PM

That is so true, I don't know one person who tried Atkins that didn't triple or quadruple their veg intake. You need something to replace grains with, most people replace with veggies, not more meat.

3
06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 19, 2010
at 03:17 AM

Sometimes I think Dr Davis has gone off the deep end. Only recently he told us that fat doesn't make us fat, but butter does make us fat. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/butter-and-insulin.html

Jimmy Moore and his panel of experts pretty well nuked that idea here: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/?p=7573

Yet he keeps talking about how eating carbs makes small dense LDL. And now he advocates carbs as the main course with a little meat on the side. WTF?

In his own words:

Carbohydrates Make you fat--Carbohydrates increase visceral fat, in particular. Increase triglycerides Reduce HDL Increase small LDL particles Increase glycation of LDL Increase blood pressure Increase c-reactive protein Reducing carbohydrates reverses all the above.

And then he advocates eating plant based and does not like animal product sources.

Lex Rooker has been eating exclusively raw meat daily for 4 years and suffers none of the ailments that Dr Davis talks about such as osteoporosis, or not having a source of Vit C makes you teeth fall out. In fact, Lex's dentist says his teeth are strong with good bone structure holding his teeth in his mouth quite well without any build up of calculus. He now gets an hour a day of sunshine Vit D3 walking with no shirt and shorts.

Dr Davis' work at Track Your Plaque is stellar...but what are we to think. If one looks back at a lot of his blog writings, carbs do all the bad things to the body. How can he now advocate carbs? What percentage I don't know.

I think I will continue to eat my animal based saturated fat diet with less than 5% tuber carbs...because my n=1 experiment says I feel fabulous when compared to eating my very sad SAD which included lots of veggies.

2
F9a0b72f38860d7601afd5a45bb53394

(3618)

on February 16, 2011
at 04:04 AM

Someone here said something about that tired old acid/alkaline saw and I didn't have room to rebut him right at his comment. I'll do it in my own space.

Carbohydrate (really sugar--all true carbs are sugars, even fiber) and fat molecules have the same elements in them: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Protein differs slightly. It has C, H, and O, but it also has N--nitrogen. Your body uses nitrogen, but if you've got free N floating around, that can cause problems. So your body gets rid of it via the kidneys.

Having extra nitrogen hanging around is what affects pH, as I understand it (if I'm full of it, somebody correct me). But that's what your kidneys are for. They remove the excess nitrogen from your bloodstream, and you pee it out as ammonia. If you think about how quickly the water you drink goes to your bladder, you can appreciate that the removal of excess nitrogen is a fairly quick process as well.

Now here's the fun part.

I was reading recently about a study in which it was shown that plant proteins contribute to bone loss, but animal proteins do not. Now, this study was based on questionnaires. I hate those kinds of studies; they're useful for establishing a basis for further study but not anything to rest upon themselves. That said, reading about the study triggered a memory for me. I recalled reading someplace that a certain amino acid had a buffering effect in the body--it helps maintain proper pH. I remembered it was one of the amino acids starting with "glut-". So I went and looked up glutamine first.

Bingo. It works in the kidneys to convert nitrogen to ammonia and get it out of the body.

Even more fun? Glutamine's available in several foods, but most notably it's available in animal foods. It's also in plants, but go look up the protein values for some of the plant foods that are highest in glutamine (for the plant kingdom)--wheat, spinach, parsley. How high are those foods in protein? How high are they in protein you would want to make a large portion of your diet? Yeah. Didn't think so.

The fun part is, glutamine is only a conditionally essential amino acid. That means as long as you're healthy, you can make enough to suit your needs. So you are making enough glutamine to buffer a limited amount of protein intake if the protein you are eating does not already contain significant amounts of glutamine. But if you are going to eat a lot of protein, I'm going to guess you would eventually run low on your own capacity to make the stuff. So if you want a lot of protein, you need to be getting it from the animal kingdom. Otherwise you are going to run low on glutamine, and at that point your body may begin drawing on its calcium reserves.

At least, that sure would explain the findings of the study I mentioned earlier, if their questionnaire numbers on protein intake were accurate.

It also explains why so many long-term vegans are coming out and saying that they lost bone mass on the vegan diet. Whoops.

And this, boys and girls, is why you should not rely on urine pH to tell you what your blood is doing. If you die, your blood pH was wrong. That's all you need to know. If you're alive enough to do a pH test on your pee, you're probably fine. Eat some freaking steak and relax.

One more thing. I know it's a useful system of classification to refer to foods as Paleo and not-Paleo. But could we please stop talking about THE Paleo diet and about what "we" did in Paleo times? In case you hadn't noticed, there are still a few scattered, random bands of people in the world who never left the Paleolithic age. Every culture's Paleolithic age, if that culture existed that far back, ended in a different time period. And since all those groups lived in different parts of the world, they had different foods available to them and therefore followed different diets. I'm sure there was a range of nutrient ratios within which they all operated, but that was a pretty wide range.

There IS no "the Paleolithic diet." There IS no "when WE were in the Paleolithic age." We are only one culture. There have been thousands and thousands of others throughout human history.

If you have any further questions about this, I suggest you crack open some Daniel Quinn. He'll knock your brain sideways. He did mine. But it needed knocking. I recommend Ishmael and The Story of B for starters.

P.S. As a feminist (though not a college feminist), I appreciate the efforts to play up the value that gatherers provided to the tribe. But if these tribes depended half as much on plant food as some of you are claiming they did, the women would have never had time to raise their kids because they'd have never stopped gathering from dawn to dusk. Gathering fell to the women because it was something they could do easily between childcare duties. It wasn't until the advent of grain agriculture that plant foods contained enough calories to make it worth the physical effort and even then, I suspect (based on random evidence I've run into from time to time) that grain ag was developed first to make beer, not to feed a populace. (You no more develop agriculture to feed starving people than you sew a parachute when you've jumped out of a plane without one.) The fact remains that animal food would have been the backbone of any Paleo diet--grubs, if nothing else. Bugs are kingdom Animalia, remember? There were no vegan Paleo groups, not even heavily vegetarian ones until after they'd developed horticulture, at minimum, and then been forced onto marginal land. Given the choice, human beings go for the animal fat and always have. (Again--bugs are high in fat, and bugs are animals. And humans, being primates, were originally insectivores!)

Any old way, there you go, and sorry for the textwall.

1
Be4b60059db3511771303de1613ecb67

(1137)

on April 20, 2010
at 03:12 AM

I think that Dr. Davis contradicts himself too much.

1
Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 07:00 AM

Dr. Davis seems to be backing himself into a corner on this subject. Why...who knows? These two posts are the first I saw of it. The comments are telling. He ignores or evades the questions Dr. Harris asks again and again. Peter from Hyperlipid gives an excellent explanation for the phenomenon Dr. Davis reports in this one:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/genetic-vs-lifestyle-small-ldl.html

Here is the first of that series:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/saturated-fat-and-large-ldl.html

I wasn't interested in too much he had to say after witnessing all of that.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on April 19, 2010
at 08:24 AM

@Rick - I noticed the same phenomenon. Odd.

0
Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 19, 2010
at 11:21 AM

I think his post is spot on, and if you are a "paleo" eater and you aren't eating a bunch of plant-based foods, you're missing the boat. You've got the "hunter" but not the "gatherer."

As Dr. Davis says, you end up with an overly acid PH balance on a too-high protein diet, and that leads to malabsorbtion of calcium, and thyroid dysfunction. The breakfast he suggests, combining nuts, blueberries, eggs, olive oil, and basil, is not only sensible, it sounds downright awesome (and it's 100% paleo).

There is a tendency to confuse a kind of Atkins like approach to eating with the Paleo theory. They are not the same. Paleo is more compatible, in fact, with Michael Pollan than with Atkins. Remember what Pollan recommends in his "In Defense of Food": "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly vegetables."

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that advice.

On the subject, I do wish that Greg Glassman would revise his famous slogan about food to the following:

"Eat plenty of vegetables, enough meat, some nuts and seeds and fruit, little starch, and no sugar."

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 27, 2010
at 01:23 AM

@Alan -- well, what can I say except, uh, YUM?

5de2fffda92c0bf2be7ede10cad55546

(1781)

on April 25, 2010
at 02:20 PM

@Matt, my "all meat" diet has plenty of lard, dripping, butter and cream in it. I couldn't imagine a steak without a big slab of butter on it. Try 2 raw eggs with a cup of cream in the shaker for a post workout drink. yum.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on April 19, 2010
at 05:34 PM

If you believe that a "too-high protein diet" leads to malabsorbtion of calcium and thyroid dysfunction, what exactly do you say when confronted with Lex Rooker?

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 22, 2010
at 02:53 AM

pfw: I've never been "confronted" by Lex Rooker but maybe he would invite me over for some raw ground organ meats, muscle and fat? again, to each his own.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 22, 2010
at 02:41 AM

Rick, no, trees? your reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply to my statement. I haven't been reading Davis' blog for too long; you may be right, but he doesn't speak against saturated fat in that post. Ambimorph... good luck with your all meat diet. Let me know where you are at in 5 years. Probably you'll be fine. But an all meat diet, especially if you are eating anything that resembles wild game and not grain fed agribusiness meat, is at best a moderate fat diet. 1 oz. of chuck = about 6.5 g protein and 2.5 g fat = 54% calories from protein and 46% fat. Myself, I get 60$ fat calories.

Fcaeaac15cf6568f2825b230731d5a7d

(529)

on April 19, 2010
at 08:45 PM

Dr. Davis' post is "spot on?" Dr. Davis is repeatedly demonizing saturated fat without cause, evading any and all reasonable challenges and requests for evidence. You seem to be doing the same. Where is the evidence? Do you really think we should eat like a bear because Native Americans considered the bear a "brother?" Many also referred to trees as their "parents," does that mean we need to photosynthesize?

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on April 19, 2010
at 06:58 PM

This is a bit silly. For one thing, an all meat diet is not high-protein, it's high fat. "Paleo", if interpreted to mean eating only paleo foods is no less compatible with all-meat than with vegan, but if interpreted to mean what our ancestors probably ate, then the evidence seems to be that we ate mostly meat with some vegetables in emergencies. Anecdotally, I eat only meat, and I feel better than I ever have.

Bdcb2101fd3f1853cfd645094d8ad086

on April 22, 2010
at 02:42 AM

Rick, no, trees? your reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply to my statement. I haven't been reading Davis' blog for too long; you may be right, but he doesn't speak against saturated fat in that post. Ambimorph... good luck with your all meat diet. Let me know where you are at in 5 years. Probably you'll be fine. But an all meat diet, especially if you are eating anything that resembles wild game and not grain fed agribusiness meat, is at best a moderate fat diet. 1 oz. of chuck = about 6.5 g protein and 2.5 g fat = 54% calories from protein and 46% fat. Myself, I get 60% fat calories.

Answer Question


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