Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

8

2

I have recently researched this quite a bit while writing a series of posts for my blog. (Part 1 here and Part 2 here)

My focus has been on Viljhalmur Stefansson, the Canadian Arctic explorer who lived on an all meat diet with various indigenous groups and again as part of a year-long experiment.

He noticed that he was more positive, focused, and felt healthier "on meat". The tests done by the research team bore these claims out as well.

Also, contrary to popular opinion, even among Paleo/Primal circles, he did not find that consuming offal or rare meats was required to sustain health.

He was a heavy meat eater all his life and lived to the ripe old age of 83.

My curiosity has obviously been aroused and I am wondering if anyone here has followed a meat-only regiment similar to Stefanssons. (Which, in case you are wondering, was comprised of flesh, fat, some organs, bones, and broths, but no eggs, dairy, or supplementation.)

(This is a picture of Stefansson while on expedition)

alt text

edited Aug 23 2011 at 1:20

asked Aug 23 2011 at 0:43

FED at LiveCaveman.com
19.2k●20●60

3

Viljhalmur Stefansson ate all-meat for a few years and that proves you don't need organ meats? – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Aug 23 2011 at 0:46

4

I find that everyone involved in paleo eventually goes through a Stefansson phase. This too shall pass :P – Katie Aug 23 2011 at 0:50

5

In the Cornell experiment, Stefansson's diet included "steaks, chops, brains fried in bacon fat, boiled short-ribs, chicken, fish, liver and bacon." (From your second link.) The liver and the brains count as offal, I think. – maurile Aug 23 2011 at 0:57

1

While he did eat offal in the experiment, in his book, "Fat of the Land", he described the traditional Inuit practice of feeding the organs to the dogs. Kids were given the kidneys, and if the organs weren't given to the dogs, it was because they were about to eat the dogs. – FED at LiveCaveman.com Aug 23 2011 at 1:07

2

@ Melissa, it's not about proving anything. Many cultures DO eat organs and offal, which I wrote about in a previous post about the Comanche. Its about discussing the idea that you HAVE to eat offal in order to make a meat-only diet work. Stefansson disagreed with this point and it was also something that he observed in the Inuit groups he lived among. – FED at LiveCaveman.com Aug 23 2011 at 1:16

show 6 more comments

Rose · Answer 1 · 2011-08-23 01:19:11Z UTC

Owsley Stanley (The Bear) ate this way, except for some heavy cream in his coffee, and some eggs. He claimed to have done it for nearly 50 years, and credits his survival of throat cancer to his all-meat diet.

My own eating for the last two years has been close to this, except I also eat eggs, and occasionally get stuck on the moo train for a few weeks at a time (heavy cream, cheese). For me, and for a few other people, this way of eating -- meat only -- has been a miracle. It resolved my terrible joint pain issues, got rid of the last 40 pounds that VLC couldn't, and most of all, relieved me of my constant, gnawing hunger. The joy of that last gift is almost impossible to describe to people who haven't experienced it. It's as if a dog that had been incessantly barking my whole life finally fell silent. I truly have inner peace, and I value that above all the other health benefits.

But although I love eating like this, I generally don't recommend it to folks who do fine eating some other way. There's no point restricting your diet if you don't need to; for me, this was a desperate measure that I honestly expected very little from, having gotten no or worse results from other desperate measures. This just happened to turn out to be the one that worked for me.

Travis Culp · Answer 2 · 2011-08-23 00:51:09Z UTC

9

I had a vegan diet for 8 years and didn't die once, but I wouldn't use that as a defense of the vegan diet.

answered Aug 23 2011 at 0:51

Travis Culp♦
39.7k●1●32●132

2

But how did you feel? Stefansson describes having stamina, optimism, and good health while "on meat" which doesn't describe your typical vegan. – FED at LiveCaveman.com Aug 23 2011 at 1:11

2

@fed, I'd have to disagree with your comment: I don't think most vegans would describe their energy or whatever with anything but those same words as Stefansson. Anyone following and maintaining one way of eating is going to report feeling well. It is only when they stop feeling well that they stop. – ben61820 Aug 23 2011 at 1:38

Didn't feel as well as I do now, but at the time I would have said that I felt completely fine. As with Stefansson, all blood test parameters were within the normal ranges. – Travis Culp♦ Aug 23 2011 at 2:58

@ben, Stefansson didn't follow "one way of eating". He started on a normal European "mixed" diet and was essentially forced to eat nothing but fish while wintering with an Eskimo family. He felt good, didn't develop scurvy, didn't witness anyone else get sick, and went on to employ such a regiment with men during his expeditions. This flew in the face of the "conventional wisdom" of the time and continues to do so. Which, is something that most of us can probably relate to. – FED at LiveCaveman.com Aug 23 2011 at 11:41

Oh I'm very familiar with his entire experiment. We've all discussed it at length on this site. My point was only that anyone following one diet is going to report feeling good while on it. I was a vegan for a while and felt great, veg time too; I did all animal products for three months, felt fine, etc. – ben61820 Aug 23 2011 at 15:46

Ambimorph · Answer 3 · 2011-08-23 15:40:57Z UTC

4

My experience is similar to Rose's. I've been eating basically only meat for nearly two years. I love a wide variety of foods, so I wouldn't still be doing this if it weren't the best personal health discovery I've ever made. It normalized both my weight and my moods, which were quite dysfunctional before.

I do eat eggs now and then, and liver or more rarely other organs when I get a hankering -- maybe once or twice a month on average. Dairy I eat a little of once in a while, and I supplement with various things, like iodine, magnesium, D3, and vitamin C, for various reasons.

answered Aug 23 2011 at 15:40

Ambimorph
19.6k●18●66

1

Ambimorph, somewhere you've got a concise listing of three possible mechanisms you entertain for the therapeutic effects of a meat diet. Carbs, plant toxins, and one other, iirc...? (And I've said it before, but that's never stopped me from quoting myself: I don't understand why it works; the benefits are so disproportionate to the change in carb intake, that it almost, but not totally, makes me skeptical that the issue is carbohydrate alone.) – Rose Aug 23 2011 at 15:56

Thanks for sharing Ambi! It seems like a common thread between those who go to an all or mostly meat diet is that they have experienced relief from chronic conditions that did not respond to other interventions. – FED at LiveCaveman.com Aug 23 2011 at 17:24

2

Rose, the other conjecture was some kind of microorganismic involvement, either in the gut, or something like candida that flourishes on any tiny amount of sugar I eat, or something more hidden like c. pneumoniae. In the latter case, I don't have a specific mechanism for why meat-only would help, but since ketosis affects the way mitochondria get energy, it might as a side-effect keep an infection at bay. – Ambimorph Aug 23 2011 at 17:50

ra25093 · Answer 4 · 2011-08-23 14:51:56Z UTC

I would rather see more evidence supporting the health of an all-meat diet, particularly one that leaves out organ meats (which I find unpalatable in general) than Stefansson's N=1 experimentation and anthropological studies of Inuit.

Whether or not vegetables are necessary for survival, I find them tasty when properly made, so without evidence of harm, I don't wish to cut them out.

However, if it works for you, go for it. The only vitamin I know of that you don't get from meat or synthesize (yourself or your gut flora) in reasonable quantity is vitamin C, and if you eat cow liver, you'll get that.

I think the balance of the evidence suggests that humans thrive on a vast variety of foods, and anywhere from all-animal to high-carb may be a part of that, and the main thing is to avoid inflammatory gluten and seed oils, and fattening amounts of sugar (particularly fructose).

losterman · Answer 5 · 2011-08-23 01:49:21Z UTC

Two thoughts to preface... 1) I think humans can survive--and even thrive--on a lot of different diets. 2) I think there's an enormous amount of individual variation in what is best for any given person's well-being.

But you asked about personal experimentation, so I will say that I have indeed tried short stints eating only meat and eggs (mostly muscle meat--no organ meat, no dairy, some stock/broth, no supplements other than some Vit D), and I was very surprised to find that my satiety suffered. I felt fine, I guess--didn't notice feeling much change re: energy levels or mood, but satiety, for me at least, is a large component of well-being. And for me personally, that means throwing in some high-fiber and/or starchy veggies with my meals.

Eric · Answer 6 · 2011-08-23 02:33:02Z UTC

2

The amount of fat is also important. You would want to keep your fat consumption high.

answered Aug 23 2011 at 2:33

Eric
22.5k●1●18●69

Exactly! "Meat" is sometimes confused with lean muscle tissue. By "meat" Stefansson meant both "the fat and the lean" which ended up being approximately 3/4 of total daily calories from fat. – FED at LiveCaveman.com Aug 23 2011 at 17:26

Eat Meat… and Nothing Else?

6 Answers