Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

3

With all the media hype around red meat causing cancer is it fair to assume that the levels of toxins in fish are exaggerated also? I'm trying to get some alternatives to all the meat and eggs I'm eating and I do like fish but somewhere in the back of my head I kind of feel like it's unhealthy, is this more CW rubbish?

flag	asked Aug 12 at 18:27 HuntingBears 5,499●3●15●40

Brewster · Answer 1 · 2012-08-12 19:29:31Z UTC

5

It is real, but probably exaggerated. If you want to reduce the levels then the best thing is to eat fish with less toxins. Basically this means smaller fish, faster growing fish and those lower down the food chain. Sardines are ideal, herring, mackeral, and even Salmon are not too bad. If your really worried then just stick to the sardines.

Personally I live off mackeral in the summer as I can catch them locally, and I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

answered Aug 12 at 19:29

Brewster
313●7

1

Agreed! Also, freshwater fish are lower in toxins, like trout. – Varelse Aug 12 at 19:33

Good answer. The way I look at it is this - even if it is grossly exaggerated, say by 50%, its still a concern. NO amount of things like mercury are safe so.... eat "safer" fish - smaller fish. Now I realize that I don't really know much about how "toxic" wild salmon is. I know about tuna. – Crowlover Aug 12 at 19:37

1

thanks, what about prawns? (shrimp) – HuntingBears Aug 12 at 20:21

1

they are excellent. – The Quilt Aug 12 at 22:32

1

The difference between wild and farm shrimp is pretty big. Farm shrimp=nasty. – Mscott Aug 13 at 2:38

show 2 more comments

The Quilt · Answer 2 · 2012-08-12 18:58:03Z UTC

2

Best thing one can eat if you have a massive brain.

answered Aug 12 at 18:58

The Quilt
27.4k●1●13●82

	Jack! Hey, weren't you supposed to be at AHS? I'm so confused. – CICO Suave Aug 13 at 2:36
	Just finished BG-6, pretty convincing stuff I'll definitely be heading to the fish store tomorrow. Thanks man. – Colin Aug 13 at 3:53
	No comment? Ah, thought so, Jack. ;) – CICO Suave Aug 15 at 2:16

BoneBrothFast · Answer 3 · 2012-08-13 02:32:59Z UTC

2

If you have sufficient intestinal bacteria AND your gut is in good shape, the majority of heavy metals will NOT be absorbed.

There's a very prevalent misconception out there that if you eat 1g of organic mercury, 1g of organic mercury will be absorbed. This is not the case. Less than 1% may be absorbed if your health is in good standing. And even then, it's possible for the body to excrete heavy metals. It's just a longer and more arduous process than excreting other toxins.

answered Aug 13 at 2:32

BoneBrothFast
4,564●2●17

	This is very good to know. Thank you. Do you have a source for this by chance? – Crowlover Aug 13 at 6:25
	this kind of makes sense really, I mean your body's not stupid, it doesn't just idly process anything you eat – HuntingBears Aug 13 at 10:05
	@Crowlover, "Role of gut bacteria in human toxicology and pharmacology" by Bradley Hillman. – BoneBrothFast Aug 13 at 16:11
	BoneBrothFast - Thank you so so much. I might not need to worry as much as I have been. Now that my gut is super healthy. Thank you. – Crowlover Aug 13 at 21:57

Colin · Answer 4 · 2012-09-18 04:23:12Z UTC

Chris Kesser talked about this in the real food summit. If the Mercury level in whatever fish you ingest is lower than Selenium you won't absorb it.

http://chriskresser.com/is-eating-fish-safe-a-lot-safer-than-not-eating-fish

I just finished reading Jack Kruse's take on the role of fish in our evolution, especially the brain and I can say that I'm pretty much sold.

http://jackkruse.com/brain-gut-5-paradigm-drifts-paradigm-shifts-epi-paleo/

I also linked to this video from Jack's site that I thought was pretty interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uroLRUsEEQ

I no longer have this view of fish and their oils, after reading up on pufas I've come to understand I don't need very much and in keeping them low they wont compete for space in the cell membrane. Eating high pufas for a long time from fish or any other source might not be beneficial to health as they do oxidize in the body.

Also the video and Chris Kesser's view on toxic metals has turned out to be incorrect.

Unless Dr. Kruse is privy to information I'm not then I'd say eating a LC high fish fat diet probably isn't optimal.

Jan · Answer 5 · 2012-08-12 19:01:48Z UTC

1

Dont forget fish offal eather. Mainly roe and heads. I ate wild salmon heads for a month, since sometimes i can get them free, atmax they cost me one euro per head. One big salmon head takes even the worst hunger away. Its also very low reward food. I gotta say, it aint easy to be eskimo ;) I ate some of the cartalidge in the head too and boiled bones to stock, and made soup out of it.

answered Aug 12 at 19:01

Jan
5,970●1●3●10

1

Remko Kuipers and Terry Wahl's made the case at AHS 2012. The rest of the community needs to read his massive research. It is overwhelming what he is saying. Some of us our listening. – The Quilt Aug 12 at 19:03

3

think I'll skip the fish heads, cheers though :p – HuntingBears Aug 12 at 20:30

1

Fish heads make the best fish broth you can make. All you need is one decent size fish head and simmer it for an hour. Try it, you won't regret it. – BoneBrothFast Aug 13 at 2:26

1

sorry to be a pedant but 'Some of us ARE listening' not 'our listening' – HuntingBears Aug 13 at 10:04

1

Come on HuntingBears. Are you really sorry? I think not. On a format like this its easy to make an error like that. People use their phones and iPads. I really do think that Jack Kruse knows the difference between ARE and OUR. I am newish here and missed all the political and petty BS with JK and others.... let it go. Please – Crowlover Aug 13 at 21:55

show 8 more comments

What about fish?

5 Answers