- Messages
- 13,438
- Location
- Canada
I do not remember my wife ever cooking lamb.
But I do like lamb chops when I eat at Greek restaurants.
But I do like lamb chops when I eat at Greek restaurants.
Uh oh! Meat eaters, beware!
- Thread starter LotusBud
- Start date
- Messages
- 46,751
- Location
- United states
I think its distinguished. It's like a light or creamy beef...I cant describe it well lol.
It's pretty stinky sometimes before its cooked but dont let that stop you. Lamb is really good and healthy.
- Messages
- 46,751
- Location
- United states
We always do lamb and fish on Resurrection Sunday(what most people call Easter).
- Messages
- 1,881
- Location
- theGreatSwamp
Red meat - not too much and I have the cholesterol levels to prove it:
75 HDL - 2.52 total/HDL. Been like that for years.
...and Albumin (a very important protein indicator of health) 4.6 which is excellent for a fellow of my ancientness. Humans do not need red meat every day or more than maybe once a month if that.
75 HDL - 2.52 total/HDL. Been like that for years.
...and Albumin (a very important protein indicator of health) 4.6 which is excellent for a fellow of my ancientness. Humans do not need red meat every day or more than maybe once a month if that.
Definitely. And definitely not the quantities of meat many people eat. A little bit of meat thrown in a stew or a soup, some eggs, and some fish or chicken is more than enough protein for anyone to be heathy, especially if they eat plant foods that are high protein, like beans and lentils and split peas and nuts.
- Messages
- 314
- Location
- Alaska
This is one of those subjects that has more grey area than people want to admit, in my opinion.
We are definitely designed to use protein. Especially men, and more than a standard 50g/ per day. Going back to the early days of humanity, the male who took in the most protein was generally healthier and stonger, most likely making him a better hunter and provider to his woman and offspring. More likely to procreate, more favorable within natural selection. Of course the world we live in is different now, but it's unreasonable to expect men to forgo the health benefits of protein.
There are for sure downsides to mass meat production. Everything from pollution to ethical issues. Things that will only increase as the world's population steadily increases in the future. I'm not sure what the answer is other than things will not end well for us lol
We are definitely designed to use protein. Especially men, and more than a standard 50g/ per day. Going back to the early days of humanity, the male who took in the most protein was generally healthier and stonger, most likely making him a better hunter and provider to his woman and offspring. More likely to procreate, more favorable within natural selection. Of course the world we live in is different now, but it's unreasonable to expect men to forgo the health benefits of protein.
There are for sure downsides to mass meat production. Everything from pollution to ethical issues. Things that will only increase as the world's population steadily increases in the future. I'm not sure what the answer is other than things will not end well for us lol
Everyone needs protein, of course. That's not the argument I am making. I think most people eat more meat than they need to, AND I think modern meat production is horrific, both for our health and for the environment. No one can forgo protein, that would be a death sentence. But everyone can eat more plant-based protein, less animal protein, and definitely less factory farmed protein.
- Messages
- 1,881
- Location
- theGreatSwamp
That image of a caveman gnawing on a hunk of bison meat may need a makeover. A new chemical analysis of modern diets suggests Stone Age humans ate less meat than thought.
The findings, published in the November issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, may explain why many archaeologists estimate that prehistoric people got most of their calories from lean or fish when modern humans would be literally poisoned by such a protein-heavy diet.
"When you look at estimates of in early archaeological interpretations, it's very animal-protein heavy, and that's very hard to explain physiologically," said study author Tamsin O'Connell, a University of Cambridge researcher. "We are suggesting that animal proteins were less important overall."
Diet sleuths
To see how much meat , archaeologists rely on the fact that protein is the only macronutrient that contains nitrogen. Different foods have different ratios of heavy and light nitrogen isotopes, or atoms of the same element with a different number of neutrons. So in a given ecosystem, scientists can reconstruct ancient diets by measuring the fraction of heavy-to-light nitrogen isotopes in .
But the body also preferentially stores heavier isotopes of nitrogen, so scientists calculate an offset to adjust for that tendency when determining what a person actually ate. Historically, the offset was derived from studies in which animals were fed diets with different protein amounts. []
Using that offset, many studies estimate that between 60 and 80 percent of the prehistoric human diet came from proteins, with most of that from animal sources.
That was surprising because no more than 45 percent of modern diets come from protein of any type.
"Even if you look at polar, Arctic dwellers, they have a lot of protein, but they have even more fat," she said. Anything greater introduces toxic amounts of nitrogen into the body.
Balanced eaters
That contradiction led O'Connell to wonder if the offset was wrong because it relied on animal estimates, not humans.
To find out, her team took human blood samples from a study where scientists meticulously re-created , measured exactly how much they ate over a week, and took precise samples of each meal. By comparing the nitrogen isotope ratios in the food and human blood samples, they were able to estimate how much heavy nitrogen the human body stores. (They then extrapolated their estimate for blood samples to human hair and to bone.)
Previous estimates based on animal studies were too small and thus inflated how much animal protein our ancient ancestors ate, she said.
Instead, the first farmers, who lived around 12,000 years ago, likely ate no more than 40 to 50 percent of their protein from animal sources. Those people ate a diet more similar to subsistence farmers in modern-day India or China, O'Connell said. Hunter-gatherers from the Paleolithic period also ate less meat, she added.
"We are suggesting that animal proteins would be less important overall and that's particularly true for interpretations of farmers," she said. "What that would mean is that they are having more of a balance of animal and plant proteins in their diet, suggestive of a mixed existence strategy.”
- Messages
- 1,881
- Location
- theGreatSwamp
Right now, one half of all Americans are on a diet. The other half just gave up on their diets and are on a binge. Collectively, we are overweight, sick and struggling. Our modern choices about what and how much to eat have gone terribly wrong. The time has come to return to a more sensible way of eating and living, but which way? One group of self-help books suggests we give up carbohydrates, another that we give up fats, another still that we lay off the protein. Or maybe we should just eat the way our ancestors did. A new class of very popular self-help books recommends a return to the diets of our ancestors. Paleolithic diets, caveman diets, primal diets and the like, urge us to remember the good ole days. Taken too literally, such diets are ridiculous. After all, like all wild species, sometimes our ancestors starved to death and the starving to death diet, well, it ends badly. The past was no panacea; each generation we made due with the bodies and foods available, imperfect bodies and imperfect foods. But let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that it would be a good idea to eat like our ancestors ate. Just what did they eat?
Here is where the trouble starts. Collectively, anthropologists have spent many a career attempting to hone in on the diets of our most recent ancestors. Typically, they focus on our stone age (AKA Paleolithic) human ancestors or our earlier pre-human, hominid ancestors. Even if we just consider our stone age ancestors—those folks whose stories span the time between the first stone tool and the first agriculture—the sides of the debate are polarized. If you listen to one camp, our ancestors got most of their nutrition from gathered fruits and nuts; successful kills of big mammals may have been more of a treat than an everyday reality. A paper out just this month suggests that even . Meanwhile, more macho camps of academics paint a picture of our ancestors as big, bad, hunters, who supplemented meaty diets with the occasional berry "chaser." Others suggest we spent much of our recent past scavenging what the lions left behind, running in to snag a half-rotten wildebeest leg when the fates allowed. In other words, athough “Paleolithic” diets in diet books tend to be very meaty, reasonable minds disagree as to whether ancient, Paleolithic diets actually were. Fortunately, new research suggests answers (yes, plural) to the question of what our ancestors ate.
etc - very interesting.
- Messages
- 314
- Location
- Alaska
For sure, I'm not saying you're wrong. There are things people can and probably should do to address the issues you're talking about. We can all do better. But people tend to take an all or nothing approach to many issues and fail to see the solutions usually tend to be found in the middle ground.
Personally, the most interesting aspect of this subject is the inevitable change that will take place in the future. There will eventually be too many humans to feed in the manner we do now. Protein sources will have to change.
- Messages
- 5,275
- Location
- No where you'd like to be......
Lol so it's a catch 22....you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hahaha
- Messages
- 8,068
- Location
- Australia
Did your grandparents grow to old age?
Eat the diet of your grandparents and do not take notice of any bullshit, "Studies."
Eat the diet of your grandparents and do not take notice of any bullshit, "Studies."
- Messages
- 12,224
I don't think it matters, LB.
Shit is shit.
What comes out of our bodies is toxic waste. Like any other animal, It's excreted from our bodies for a reason.
Root cause is there's too many bloody people on the planet.
- Messages
- 314
- Location
- Alaska
I'm bigger and stronger than both of my grandfathers. Didn't get this way by following their diet and nutrition example, so your logic is flawed.
- Messages
- 8,068
- Location
- Australia
you didn't answer my first question dumbarse.... and I believe you had to have had two grandmothers in the gene mix.... plus bigger and stronger has nothing to do with longevity... duhhhh!
- Messages
- 1,881
- Location
- theGreatSwamp
...and you know what they say:
The weaker, the wiser.
..and how does that jibe with the protein equals bigger better brain theory?
Could it be Darwin didn't get the whole evolutionary picture right? (winkydink smiley)
- Messages
- 5,525
Get your big ass over derr the the ocean and start dookin' it up den!!
- Messages
- 314
- Location
- Alaska
Lol both of my grandfathers died in their 50s
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
I ate at the Y today. IT WUZ DELICIOUS!
Only if you're the "I give up" type.
- Messages
- 8,068
- Location
- Australia
Well then if they died in their 50s from anything other than an accident, you're fucked.
- Messages
- 314
- Location
- Alaska
I believe it
