http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59566.html



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."



- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

I've eaten raccoon a few times when I was a child.  My dad (a

Depression baby, he likes to say) cooked it on the barbecue pit.  I

remember it was good.  More like beef than chicken.



-PattyT



--- In native-nutrition@yahoogroups.com, Michael <slethnobotanist@...>

wrote:

>

> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59566.html

>

Michael-



> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59566.html



Hmm, interesting.  I wonder what the lipid profile of raccoon meat

tends to be like.



-Paul



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Paul Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> Hmm, interesting.  I wonder what the lipid profile of raccoon meat

> tends to be like.



Paul, funny you should ask.  It just so happens that the USDA has

nutrient data for raccoon:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/



You do have to spell it correctly "raccoon" unlike the title of this

message, Michael :)



I also posted the percent of calories as PUFA here, in comparison with

other game meat:

http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life.blogspot.com/2008/11/fat-follies.html



According the USDA sample, raccoon meat has about 7.4 percent of

calories as PUFA, which is very similar to commercial pork, but not as

low as beaver at 5.7 percent, and much higher than ruminants.  It's

lower than bear at 8.4 percent and possum at 12.1 percent, which are

also in the USDA nutrient data base.  I suspect game meat probably

varies a lot by season and in the USDA data there is no indication as

to the season the meat was collected.



I learned that bear fat is used by natives to supplement otherwise

lean game meat like moose:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucemckay/2930424552/in/pool-native-nutrition



Bryan

Bryan,



> Paul, funny you should ask. It just so happens that the USDA has

> nutrient data for raccoon:

> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

>

> You do have to spell it correctly "raccoon" unlike the title of this

> message, Michael :)



Well thanks for doing the legwork for me in response to Paul's

question and for correcting my grammar :-)



How is the weight loss going by the way? I am getting ready to make a

post about working out at home and couldn't help but think of you ;-)



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."

- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

--- Michael <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> How is the weight loss going by the way?



Michael, doing the 18/6 fast/eat IF worked quite well for me, as I

lost almost 20 pounds over 5 months from July to December.  My weight

has stabilized around 203 pounds over the last month, but I didn't

stick to the 18/6 over the holidays.  I'm 6'1", so that's not too bad

of a weight, considering that I exercise daily (walk and jog) and have

a fairly good muscle mass from the frequent exercise.



Lately I've been doing 18/6 just on weekdays.  I still would like to

lose about another 10 pounds of fat, so I plan to continue the 18/6 on

weekdays this spring, and maybe indefinitely if necessary to keep my

weight stable.



In discussing IF with some of the Flickr NN members, one member said

she couldn't fast because if she doesn't eat frequently she gets very

weak and will sometimes faint!  So, she didn't think IF was a good

idea and she's probably right if it leads to fainting :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stubborndev/3164565749/



I don't feel any weakness when I'm in the fast periods.  I do get a

little hungry sometimes, but I've learned to live with it.  Getting

used to the hunger was difficult at first, but it only took about a

week to get used to it.  Skipping dinner gives me more time to do

other things, which I like.  I still eat a fairly low carb diet,

probably about 20 to 30 percent of calories from carbs, and much of

that is from raw dairy (digested into glucose and galactose, but with

plenty of fat and protein to slow the digestion).  I suspect that

eating low-carb helps to stabilize blood sugar levels, thus minimizing

the intensity of hunger and helping to keep up strength during the

fasting periods.



Bryan

Bryan-



Interesting.  Not being a ruminant, I suppose raccoons deposit PUFA in

proportion to the PUFA in their diets, which could well vary widely.



On a related note, I've long wanted to find (or commission) some pork

from pigs raised on low-PUFA diets (maybe using coconut and potatoes

as staple feeds, for example) but I also wonder whether the resulting

pork would be missing some of pork's important culinary virtues due to

a reduced fraction of PUFA.  That would be unfortunate, but still,

it's an experiment that I'd love to undertake.  <g>



-Paul



> According the USDA sample, raccoon meat has about 7.4 percent of

> calories as PUFA, which is very similar to commercial pork, but not as

> low as beaver at 5.7 percent, and much higher than ruminants. It's

> lower than bear at 8.4 percent and possum at 12.1 percent, which are

> also in the USDA nutrient data base. I suspect game meat probably

> varies a lot by season and in the USDA data there is no indication as

> to the season the meat was collected.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,



> On a related note, I've long wanted to find (or commission) some pork

> from pigs raised on low-PUFA diets (maybe using coconut and potatoes

> as staple feeds, for example) but I also wonder whether the resulting

> pork would be missing some of pork's important culinary virtues due to

> a reduced fraction of PUFA. That would be unfortunate, but still,

> it's an experiment that I'd love to undertake. <g>



IIRC, pigs have been fed both coconut and potatoes but they get too

lean as a result. Pork today, unlike the pork of my childhood, is far

too lean IMO (except for one cut), and I can barely even recognize it

taste wise. So my guess is that you will most definitely have to

commission this study :-)



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."

- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

Michael-



> IIRC, pigs have been fed both coconut and potatoes but they get too

> lean as a result. Pork today, unlike the pork of my childhood, is far

> too lean IMO (except for one cut), and I can barely even recognize it

> taste wise. So my guess is that you will most definitely have to

> commission this study :-)



I can see coconut having that effect (though I seem to recall reading

that Sally buys pork from a farmer who feeds coconut to his pigs; I'd

love to know which one!) but potatoes?  Why would potatoes have a

slimming effect?  Or is it just a relative effect due to the lack of

metabolism-depressing PUFA?  Even with that, they're practically pure

starch...



-Paul



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,



> I can see coconut having that effect (though I seem to recall reading

> that Sally buys pork from a farmer who feeds coconut to his pigs; I'd

> love to know which one!) but potatoes? Why would potatoes have a

> slimming effect? Or is it just a relative effect due to the lack of

> metabolism-depressing PUFA? Even with that, they're practically pure

> starch...



Both I would think. High carb low fat, at least in humans, can be

quite slimming if you are not suffering from metabolic syndrome and

aren't consuming bad grains and sugar.



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."

- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

Michael-



> Both I would think. High carb low fat, at least in humans, can be

> quite slimming if you are not suffering from metabolic syndrome and

> aren't consuming bad grains and sugar.



In general, though, being overweight goes hand in hand with some

measure of metabolic syndrome, and I'm not sure how much functional

difference there is between starch and sugar, really, antinutrient

issues like phytic acid aside.



-Paul



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,



> In general, though, being overweight goes hand in hand with some

> measure of metabolic syndrome,



Right. I'm not sure why you would think I disagree, probably because I

didn't phrase my previous post clearly enough.



>and I'm not sure how much functional

> difference there is between starch and sugar, really, antinutrient

> issues like phytic acid aside.



Well the evidence apparently suggests there is quite a bit of

functional difference between specific carbohydrate forms, with us

westerners taking a beating metabolically speaking because of the

forms we ingest, like refined grains and white sugar, and I don't

think the WAPF recommendations are all that helpful in this area. We

have always had this information in front of us via NAPD but it kind

of gets lost or is given short shrift by some.



You can wade through the material of Staffan Lindeberg, MD, PhD

(http://www.staffanlindeberg.com/Home.html) or you can get the quick

and dirty over at the Whole Health Source blog and branch out from

there:



http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/Kitava



Excellent blog as is this: http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/



Neither author believes the evidence points to a lack of functional

difference among carbohydrates.



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."

- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

.> Well the evidence apparently suggests there is quite a bit of

> functional difference between specific carbohydrate forms, with us

> westerners taking a beating metabolically speaking because of the

> forms we ingest, like refined grains and white sugar, and I don't

> think the WAPF recommendations are all that helpful in this area. We

> have always had this information in front of us via NAPD but it kind

> of gets lost or is given short shrift by some.



There was an interesting brief comment in a discussion that it's the

volume of fructose that is unnatural and a root cause - mostly by

ingesting sugar.  Fructose is one difference between starch and sugar.



Interview with Australia's Gillespie on fructose and sugar:

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/?p=3345

--- Connie <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> There was an interesting brief comment in a discussion that it's the

> volume of fructose that is unnatural and a root cause - mostly by

> ingesting sugar.  Fructose is one difference between starch and

> sugar.



Connie, that's my feeling too.  Excess fructose, especially in

conjunction with excess linoleic acid are bad news for long-term health.



Bryan

Bryan,



>> There was an interesting brief comment in a discussion that it's the

>> volume of fructose that is unnatural and a root cause - mostly by

>> ingesting sugar. Fructose is one difference between starch and

>> sugar.

>

> Connie, that's my feeling too. Excess fructose, especially in

> conjunction with excess linoleic acid are bad news for long-term health.



This is where I think the concept of seasonality is important. Even in

tropical lands where fruit is eaten as part of a high carb diet, fruit

is seasonal, eaten only for a few months, and then the rest of the

year absent from the diet. So no gorging on fructose all year around.



Any man-made fructose added to the diet (or non-traditional sweetener

like agave) is crazy, IMO, no matter what season of the year.



Fructose also, IMO, highlights the weakness of the glycemic index as a

marker for healthy carbs.



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."

- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

Trying to post this again.



Blues music and racoons...



http://metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13618

--- lynchwt <lynchwt@...> wrote:

> Blues music and racoons...

> http://metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13618



LOL! I got them raccoon blues!



I guess if he's 69 and been eating raccoons all his life they can't be

too bad, despite the higher PUFA than some other meats :)



Bryan

Michael-



> Well the evidence apparently suggests there is quite a bit of

> functional difference between specific carbohydrate forms, with us

> westerners taking a beating metabolically speaking because of the

> forms we ingest, like refined grains and white sugar, and I don't

> think the WAPF recommendations are all that helpful in this area. We

> have always had this information in front of us via NAPD but it kind

> of gets lost or is given short shrift by some.



I should've been more clear, but I did think it was obvious from the

context that what I meant was that I don't think it matters all that

much what form a given monosaccharide is in, i.e. as a monosaccharide

or chained together into starch, not that there are no differences

between different monosaccharides.  IOW I think the evidence is

suggestive that fructose, at least in meaningful amounts, is bad news,

and that glucose, at least for people who don't already have some

measure of metabolic syndrome, may be OK, or at least much less

nasty.  And as I said, I was keeping that issue separate from

questions of antinutrients and micronutrients.



-Paul



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,





> Michael-

>

>> Well the evidence apparently suggests there is quite a bit of

>> functional difference between specific carbohydrate forms, with us

>> westerners taking a beating metabolically speaking because of the

>> forms we ingest, like refined grains and white sugar, and I don't

>> think the WAPF recommendations are all that helpful in this area. We

>> have always had this information in front of us via NAPD but it kind

>> of gets lost or is given short shrift by some.

>

> I should've been more clear, but I did think it was obvious from the

> context that what I meant was that I don't think it matters all that

> much what form a given monosaccharide is in, i.e. as a monosaccharide

> or chained together into starch, not that there are no differences

> between different monosaccharides.



Right, but your original comment suggests that a diet high in pure

starch should lead to weight gain. So when I say different

carbohydrate forms I'm not taking about how a particular

monosaccharide is put together, I'm talking about the functional

difference between monosaccharides, because your original point

suggests there is none between potato starch and a more potentially

problematic monosaccharide like fructose.



> IOW I think the evidence is

> suggestive that fructose, at least in meaningful amounts, is bad news,

> and that glucose, at least for people who don't already have some

> measure of metabolic syndrome, may be OK, or at least much less

> nasty.



Then clearly there is something I don't understand about the process.

I'm in agreement about fructose, although I think the evidence for

glucose is far stronger than just less nasty, although I could

understand why you would emphasize it in that manner.



Anyway, the original context of the discussion was about the lean

producing potential of potatoes in pigs, which you questioned how such

could occur since potatoes are nearly pure starch. Leaving aside some

studies that seem to suggest that potatoes can increase insulin

sensitivity and also be fat reducing (since I haven't read them they

could be totally off the mark), is there a significant portion of

potato starch that breaks down to fructose?



> And as I said, I was keeping that issue separate from

> questions of antinutrients and micronutrients.



Right, which I wasn't addressing.



Michael

--

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever

spent before, and it does not work... I say after eight years of this

administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started

-- and an enormous debt to boot."

- Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary)

--- Paul Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> On a related note, I've long wanted to find (or commission) some

> pork from pigs raised on low-PUFA diets (maybe using coconut and

> potatoes as staple feeds, for example) but I also wonder whether

> the resulting pork would be missing some of pork's important

> culinary virtues due to a reduced fraction of PUFA.  That would be

> unfortunate, but still, it's an experiment that I'd love to

> undertake.<g>



Paul, the USDA also has data on wild boar.  Cooked, it has 3.6% of

calories as PUFA and 24.6% of calories as fat.  That's a little more

lean than cooked bison ribeye, which has 28.8% calories as fat but

only 1.4% of calories as PUFA.  It's a lot more lean than cooked ham

which has 45.6% of calories as fat and 7.1% of calories as PUFA.



I remember Eric Furbish mentioned a couple of years ago that he was

getting some wild boar in France.  I'd be curious how they prepare it.



As far as pig diet and PUFA, maybe certain types of food are conducive

to causing an omnivore to retain PUFA from the diet, whereas those

same foods do not cause ruminants to accumulate PUFA.  Maybe lectins

in grains and legumes?  Maybe gluten?  It might not necessarily be the

PUFA content of the food that causes PUFA retention.  That could be

true in humans too.



Bryan

Bryan-



> Paul, the USDA also has data on wild boar. Cooked, it has 3.6% of

> calories as PUFA and 24.6% of calories as fat. That's a little more

> lean than cooked bison ribeye, which has 28.8% calories as fat but

> only 1.4% of calories as PUFA. It's a lot more lean than cooked ham

> which has 45.6% of calories as fat and 7.1% of calories as PUFA.



Yeah, but I think the PUFA content of wild boar is low mainly because

wild boar is lean, not because the PUFA fraction of the total fat in

wild boar is necessarily low.  For that reason, I think it's more

useful to look at the percentage of fat which is PUFA, and by that

metric, wild boar comes in at close to 15%.



> As far as pig diet and PUFA, maybe certain types of food are conducive

> to causing an omnivore to retain PUFA from the diet, whereas those

> same foods do not cause ruminants to accumulate PUFA. Maybe lectins

> in grains and legumes? Maybe gluten? It might not necessarily be the

> PUFA content of the food that causes PUFA retention. That could be

> true in humans too.



Ruminants don't accumulate PUFA (beyond a certain low percentage)

because their gut bacteria saturate PUFA, turning most dietary PUFA

into MFA and SFA.  As we have completely different gut bacteria (part

and parcel of a completely different digestive system) we don't

saturate dietary PUFA, and thus we deposit PUFA largely in line with

how much PUFA is in our diet.  I doubt lectins and gluten have much to

do with it.



-Paul



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Bryan wrote:

> > Paul, the USDA also has data on wild boar. Cooked, it has 3.6% of

> > calories as PUFA and 24.6% of calories as fat. That's a little

> > more lean than cooked bison ribeye, which has 28.8% calories as

> > fat but only 1.4% of calories as PUFA. It's a lot more lean than

> > cooked ham which has 45.6% of calories as fat and 7.1% of

> > calories as PUFA.

>

--- Paul Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> Yeah, but I think the PUFA content of wild boar is low mainly

> because wild boar is lean, not because the PUFA fraction of the

> total fat in wild boar is necessarily low.  For that reason, I

> think it's more useful to look at the percentage of fat which is

> PUFA, and by that metric, wild boar comes in at close to 15%.



Paul, that's a good point.  PUFA as a percent of total fat is actually

lower in commercial pork than in wild boar.



> > As far as pig diet and PUFA, maybe certain types of food are

> > conducive to causing an omnivore to retain PUFA from the diet,

> > whereas those same foods do not cause ruminants to accumulate

> > PUFA. Maybe lectins in grains and legumes? Maybe gluten? It might

> > not necessarily be the PUFA content of the food that causes PUFA

> > retention. That could be true in humans too.

>

> Ruminants don't accumulate PUFA (beyond a certain low percentage)

> because their gut bacteria saturate PUFA, turning most dietary

> PUFA into MFA and SFA.  As we have completely different gut

> bacteria (part and parcel of a completely different digestive

> system) we don't saturate dietary PUFA, and thus we deposit PUFA

> largely in line with how much PUFA is in our diet.  I doubt lectins

> and gluten have much to do with it.



That makes good sense.  Have studies actually shown this to be true?

Or could it be that somehow ruminants just don't absorb much PUFA

(which is still a digestive difference).  I was thinking that maybe

lectins or some other factor in grains might dispose the digestive

system to absorb PUFA, whereas gut bacteria in ruminants might more

efficiently break down the lectins (or whatever) so the digestive

system can exclude more PUFA.  Humans may not have the right microbes

to handle the lectins, and thus proper fermentation of seeds to break

down the lectins is necessary for optimal nutrition.  Just a thought.



Bryan

--- In native-nutrition@yahoogroups.com, Paul Idol <paul.idol@...>

wrote:

>

> Bryan-

>

> Interesting.  Not being a ruminant, I suppose raccoons deposit PUFA in

> proportion to the PUFA in their diets, which could well vary widely.

>

> On a related note, I've long wanted to find (or commission) some pork

> from pigs raised on low-PUFA diets (maybe using coconut and potatoes

> as staple feeds, for example) but I also wonder whether the resulting

> pork would be missing some of pork's important culinary virtues due to

> a reduced fraction of PUFA.  That would be unfortunate, but still,

> it's an experiment that I'd love to undertake.  <g>

>

> -Paul

>

> > According the USDA sample, raccoon meat has about 7.4 percent of

> > calories as PUFA, which is very similar to commercial pork, but not

as

> > low as beaver at 5.7 percent, and much higher than ruminants. It's

> > lower than bear at 8.4 percent and possum at 12.1 percent, which are

> > also in the USDA nutrient data base. I suspect game meat probably

> > varies a lot by season and in the USDA data there is no indication

as

> > to the season the meat was collected.

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

We had a neighbor growing up who was a hunter, and famous for his burgoo

(Kentucky stew- ostensibly full of roadkill) which he only served rarely

at his parties.  He mostly hunted doves, but one year killed a racoon,

and put it in the freezer so that when people bugged him for his recipe,

he could tell them to poke around in his freezer.  We kids gave a frozen

racoon's foot to people on their birthdays for years. . . .



Desh

____________________________________________________________

Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by filing for

bankruptcy.

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw22U6fxRUPSu9orrmaDJp050JbTycxj\

NEfy4TXDpczgS3CsO/