Photos of recipes from the new book Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Photos of recipes from the cookbook Tender Grassfed Meat
When Organic Tests No Better, Check the Soil, and the Bias
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Magnificent olive trees thriving on the rich soil at Chaffin Family Orchards.
Recently, another study claiming that organic food has no more nutrients than conventional food was published. Since this study appears to defend the chemical-laden conventional food, it has been widely spread by the mainstream press. Yet several important factors should be noted about this latest study.
First, it provides no new data, but is a review of approximately 200 previous studies.
Second, nearly all studies of this nature, including most, if not all, of the studies they reviewed, are done by universities who are completely committed to supporting conventional agriculture, and receive large donations from Big Ag and the biotech industry, including Monsanto.
Third, and most important, it completely ignored, as do nearly all studies of this type, the most important factor in how many nutrients will be in food—the soil.
The Fatal Flaw in Conventional vs. Organic Studies
Have you ever been puzzled about why almost every study comparing organic food to conventional food finds no difference in nutrients? I have. It just does not make sense. Yet university study after university study finds no real difference. The answer was given to me by a farmer who attended a famous agricultural program in a well known university. I will honor my promise to keep his identity confidential.
This farmer, while a student, assisted with agricultural studies and is completely familiar with how they were conducted. Universities and food research organizations have their own land, or land that they use to raise crops and animals for studies and experiments. When they study the qualities of crops or animals, they raise them on their particular research land. Since nearly all of the research they do involves conventional farming, this land is heavily spayed with pesticides on an ongoing basis, and artificial fertilizers are regularly used. This has the effect of greatly depleting the natural nutrients in the soil, and filling the soil with substances that block the absorption of nutrients.
When “organic†farming is done on this land for the purpose of a study, the same blasted, depleted soil is used that had previously been used to raise conventional foods.
Since the nutrients are not there in the soil in the first place, plants that are grown with organic methods on that dead, depleted soil do not have more nutrients than conventional food raised on the same soil. The plants and animals cannot absorb nutrients which are not there. The same chemical residues that block the absorption of nutrients in conventional agriculture will block the absorption of nutrients when organic methods are used on the same poor soil.
This fact alone makes all of these studies fatally flawed.
The Database for the Study Is Flawed
A study relying only on other studies has all of the flaws of the studies it relies on. Most of these studies were conducted by researchers beholden to Big Ag.
So many studies these days are nothing but an analysis of other studies. I do not consider this method to be of value, since studies of this type rely on all the bad information gathered and interpreted by the previous studies. This is particularly true in this case. The agricultural research done in this country is completely dominated by conventional and high-tech methods, especially GMOs and Bio Tech. Chemicals rule, and GMOs are touted as the solution to every problem. The reason for this bias is obvious—money. Big Ag and the biotech industry make huge grants to agricultural schools, with Monsanto leading the way. In fact, one of the largest and most respected agricultural schools in the nation has been called “Monsanto U†by its students. My anonymous friend was openly mocked by his professors when he questioned the desirability and safety of GMOs. Funding is also provided by the Federal government, which appears to only fund research of conventional agriculture and GMOs.
Just about all agricultural research done in these institutions is on conventional methods and GMOs. The extent of how bad and biased this really is was shown during debate on the most recent farm bill. Senator Jon Tester of Montana introduced an amendment that would require that just five percent of federally-funded agricultural research be devoted toward the development of classic non-GMO seeds and biological diversity in seeds, as opposed to the current zero percent. That amendment was killed. Which tells us that one hundred percent of federal agricultural research funding, which goes to the very institutions that do agricultural research and studies, is devoted to GMOs and similar unnatural methods.
Do you trust institutions whose funding is targeted solely toward supporting Big Ag and GMOs to be unbiased when it comes to research that affects the value of Big Ag and GMOs?
The Healthy Peoples Studied by Dr. Price Got Far More Nutrients than We Do
Dr. Weston A. Price spent ten years traveling the world to learn about nutrition. He studied a number of traditional peoples who ate the diets of their ancestors. Dr. Price sent over twenty thousand samples of their foods to be studied in the U.S. It was found that these peoples got far more vitamins and minerals than modern peoples, often five times as much or more, depending on the nutrient. All of their food was organic. All of their food came from soils and environments that had never been sprayed with chemicals, or subject to artificial fertilizers. All these peoples were careful to rest, restore, and fertilize the soil they used, using totally organic methods. Dr. Price wrote that many of the nutritional deficiencies suffered by modern peoples were due to the poor, depleted soil that was used for farming. I might add that the soil he wrote about was far less depleted than the soil we use today.
Dr. Price considered good soil to be the foundation of nutritious food, and devoted an entire chapter to this subject in his book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.
Yet this latest study totally ignored the quality of the soil used to raise the food in the studies.
Grassfed Meat Is Far Superior to Factory Meat, and Depends on Good Soil
Like almost all such studies, the issue of whether the meat people ate was grassfed or factory meat was totally ignored. But the truth of the matter is that grassfed meat contains far more nutrients than factory meat, containing far more omega-3 fatty acids, much higher levels of CLA, and many other nutrients. This has actually been established by studies, whose information is superbly presented and summarized in this excellent article at EatWild.com, Health Benefits of Grass-fed Products.
While most grassfed beef is not organic, it is raised with methods that are the equivalent of organic, and it must be raised on soil that is rich enough to support good grass, or the cattle will not thrive and fatten. Many grassfed ranchers use traditional rotational grazing methods to enrich their soil and improve their grass.
Truly Organic Food, Grown on Good Soil, Is Much More Nutritious than Conventional Food
I have eaten organic food that seemed quite ordinary, and organic food that filled me with energy, made symptoms disappear, and made me feel like I had just taken a drink from the fountain of youth. The difference? I am convinced it was the soil. Much organic food is grown on soil that was once used for chemical agriculture, which ruins and depletes the soil.
But some organic food is grown on clean soil, free of chemicals, which has been carefully nurtured with traditional methods. I have eaten fruit and meat raised at Chaffin Family Orchards. The fruit, eggs, and meat from this farm is raised on land that has never been sprayed with chemicals. Land that has not been tainted with artificial fertilizer. Land whose fertility is carefully nurtured and preserved by traditional methods, such as rotational grazing.
The first Chaffin food I ate was some organic apricots. The skin on two of my fingers was quite dry and was peeling and cracked in a few small areas. I thought it was due to the hot, dry summer and not drinking enough. While apricots are not my favorite food, these apricots were delicious beyond dreams, I felt so good and renewed when I ate them. Within two days, the skin on these fingers had healed completely, as if it had never been damaged. I had been eating plenty of organic fruits and vegetables before I ate the Chaffin apricots, and I am convinced that it was the good soil that made the difference. There was some nutrient in those apricots that my body used to heal the dry skin. Anecdotal? Totally.
But let us remember something. Humans have been learning and passing down information for tens of thousands of years, maybe longer. All of that knowledge was anecdotal. Modern scientific studies have been around for less than two hundred years, and would have never been invented if it were not for the anecdotal information that came first. There is old saying—experience is the best teacher. What I learned from the Chaffin apricots taught me to appreciate the value of food grown on pure, rich, chemical-free soil. I trust this experience far more than any number of flawed studies.
Based on the knowledge of how agricultural research is conducted today, the work of Dr. Price, and my own experience—I am convinced that organic food, or the equivalent of organic, raised on good soil—contains far more nutrients than conventional foods.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday and Freaky Friday blog carnival.
Why Grassfed Meat Is Good for the Planet
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
photo credit: gr8dnes These magnificent bison and lush grasslands support each other in nature’s balance.
The World Water Conference is now taking place, and misinformation rules. A report came out claiming that meat must be reduced to five percent or less of the world’s diet, so the increasing population can be fed. The report claimed that there will not be enough water to feed the planet without this dietary change. Vegan and vegetarian diets are now necessary to save the planet? Nonsense!
The fact of the matter is this. Vast herds of grazing animals made agriculture possible, by creating and supporting grasslands and soil. The world’s water supply can be greatly increased by increasing the number of grazing animals, and having them follow proper grazing practices. Not only will this greatly increase the water supply, but it will result in the creation of great amounts of new soil suitable for growing crops, and increase the size and richness of grasslands, allowing even more herds to graze. And the grassfed meat made available by following this path will provide the food that is far more nutrient-dense and nourishing than a plant-only diet.
This is not a fantasy. Properly managed grazing has already reversed desertification in many areas of the world, which has resulted in the restoration of dried out streams and rivers and the formation of rich soil.
Grassfed meat is not the problem. It is the solution.
The Vegan Fantasy Holds No Water
This is true in more than one way. The theory that we must reduce meat eating to five percent or less of the world’s diet is based on several misconceptions, ideology, and a lack of understanding of the vital role played by grazing animals.
The assumption is made that most meat will be raised by the factory model, with large amounts of food plants such as soy and corn used to feed the animals. This process is harmful, in that the animals are fed an unnatural diet that makes them far less nutritious, and a lot of water is used to grow these crops that are fed to animals. Even worse, when the animals are not grazing in dense herds, they are not performing their proper function of enriching and creating soil, and creating and recreating grasslands, which hold water in the earth, and prevent desertification and the wastage of water. Properly managed grassfed grazing avoids these problems, and rebuilds the earth and increases the water supply. Grassfed animals need no crops to be grown for them, and proper grazing practices create plant life that holds water in the soil, increasing rainfall and the water supply.
If the world’s supply of grazing animals is greatly decreased as recommended by the report, the world’s soil will literally hold no water, and desertification and a great reduction in the world’s water supply will occur. This could lead to mass starvation.
How the Grasslands Were Created
Once, there were huge herds of grazing animals on the grasslands of our planet. A perfect example was the huge herds of bison, estimated at seventy million or more, that once roamed the Great Plains of the United States. These herds moved in tight groups, as a defense against predators. When they grazed on a particular area of land, they would eat all the old growth, dig up the earth, stomp the grass seeds deep into the churned up soil, fertilize the soil with their manure, and leave. It would be months before they returned, and the rich crop of grass they planted in the earth they dug up with their hooves, and fertilized with their manure, grew and thrived. This rich grass held water in the soil, creating more rainfall that resulted in the creation of rivers and streams that provided more water for richer grass and for the grazing animals to drink. When the herds returned, the whole process was repeated.
The herds supported the grass and the grass fed the herds. This was the perfect balance created by nature, and it resulted in the creation of rich soil that could support food crops. Grazing animals were the key to the health and life of the soil, and still are.
How the Grasslands Are Being Turned into Deserts
The great wild herds of grazing animals are largely gone, replaced by modern monocrops, which suck the life out of the soil and destroy many of the grasses and plants necessary for the land to hold water. Small modern herds do not follow proper grazing practices, and do far less to help the land. Pesticides and chemicals are used to kill many of the native grasses, and the few crops planted by humans take huge amounts of water to grow, without returning any water to the land. Croplands are not rotated, and the land is given no chance to rest and regenerate. These practices have resulted in large amounts of grassland turning into desert. Deserts that cannot be used to grow crops. Deserts that cannot hold water. This is a huge problem all over the world, including the U.S. Reducing the number of grazing animals will only accelerate the process.
The Natural Solution
Since herds create and support grasslands, the solution is herds of grazing animals. This is not theory, it has already been done. Holistic Management, a system created by Allan Savory, uses properly managed herds of grazing animals, including cattle, to rebuild and support soil through an ingenious system that actually reverses the desertification process. You have only to look at the before and after photos maintained at the Savory Institute website to see what a huge difference this process can make.
The Holistic Management system works with and honors the laws of nature to restore grasslands, using grazing animals as a vital part of the process. Many grassfed ranchers have been inspired to use similar grazing practices to improve their land and soil. This includes John Wood of U.S. Wellness Meats, who has greatly improved the grass yield and quality of his soil, as shown in Grassfed Farmer Renews the Land. I can attest to the excellence of the meat he raises, having eaten it many times.
We can support these ranchers and their efforts to heal and restore the grasslands by buying and eating the wonderful grassfed meat they raise. In fact, I submit that one of the best things any of us can do to increase the food, soil, and water supply of the planet is to eat grassfed meat from ranchers using proper grazing practices. This is the most delicious and nourishing “burden†I can imagine.
We need far more grazing animals, not less, and their meat and fat is the most nourishing food humans have ever eaten. We do not need the factory meat system, which goes against the laws of nature and truly wastes resources.
Eating grassfed meat is not the problem. It is the solution.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday and Freaky Friday blog carnivals.
“Just Eat Real Food†Means Just Eat Real Food, Not 20% Junk
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
This beautiful grassfed meat is 100% grassfed and 100% real—much better and tastier than anything that comes out of a factory.
JERF, which stands for Just Eat Real Food, is the best nutritional advice I have ever seen. And in only four words. This terrific phrase was coined by Sean Croxton, of the Underground Wellness Show. I try to live up to it, and the results have been amazing in every way. If you just eat real food, you will avoid many toxins, and get the nutrition your body so desperately needs. But to get these benefits, it is important that you just eat real food, and nothing else, to the best of your reasonable ability.
Yet there are those who are claiming it is okay to eat any junk food you want, as long as you do it no more than twenty percent of the time. While that would be so convenient and make things so much easier, it is just not true. While eating real food eighty percent of the time is much better than eating junk food most of the time, shooting for eighty percent is just not good enough, in my opinion. If you want to enjoy the full range of benefits that comes from a real food diet, it is important to do your best to just eat real food. If you are eating twenty percent junk, you are still eating a significant amount of junk, which will affect your body, and maintain your addictions to various factory ingredients, like processed sugar. After all, junk is junk, and should be avoided to the extent possible.
We did an experiment last week, dropping off the real food wagon and allowing ourselves to eat the junk food we wanted for one major meal. It was a mistake, as is described below.
But the bottom line is this—if you want the full benefit of real food—JERF. Just Eat Real Food.
The Real 80/20 Rule
The 80/20 concept in terms of diet was created by Mark Sisson, one of the most influential people in the Primal/Paleo movement. It was created to help people make the significant diet and lifestyle changes advocated by his program, the Primal Blueprint, without feeling bad if they could not do it all of the time. The concept was that if you do eighty percent of the program, you will receive substantial benefits. Yet some people have taken the 80/20 rule to mean that you only have to eat real food eighty percent of the time, and it is fine to eat any junk you want for the other twenty percent of the time.
Not only is real food a distinct concept from The Primal Blueprint, the eighty/twenty rule was never meant to be a license to eat junk twenty percent of the time. Mark Sisson himself made that very clear. Here is a link to an article by him that explains what he meant: 80/20 Revisited
If you read the article, you will see that he advocates trying for 100 percent compliance with the program, but not kicking yourself if you can only reach eighty percent. That is not a license to eat factory junk twenty percent of the time.
My Experiment in Eating Some Junk
My wife and I have been just eating real food, to the best of our reasonable ability to do so, for many years. We tried for 100 percent real food, but did not feel guilty for the times when we did not make this goal because of circumstances. Our path is to do the best we reasonably can to just eat real food, but not to feel bad about the occasions when this does not happen. We have seen enormous improvements in our health, energy, productivity, happiness, attitude, general joy of life, and ability to deal with whatever happens. If the medical profession and drug industry was depending on people like us, they would go broke, because we have no need for them.
Yet I do miss, from time to time, some of the factory foods I was addicted to. And the truth is that avoiding toxins and eating only real food is not easy. It can be awkward socially, in restaurants, at parties, at family dinners, where toxic factory food is often served. It is so much easier just to go along with the crowd and eat as they do. After reading some of the advocacy for the version of the eighty/twenty rule that allows you to eat any junk you want in the twenty percent portion, we decided to investigate. After all, the idea that we could maintain all the benefits of real food and eat any junk we wanted twenty percent of the time was tempting. So, last Friday night, we dropped off the real food wagon and ordered a pizza from a large chain that we used to frequent before we switched to real food. We got our old favorite toppings, though I could not bring myself to order a topping that contained feedlot beef.
After I took the first bite of pizza, I was astonished at how I immediately wanted to eat more and more and more of it. The taste was mediocre, yet I wanted to keep eating and eating it, to wolf it down as fast as I could cram it into my mouth. Normally I prefer to eat slowly, thoroughly chewing my food before swallowing it. I was astonished by how strong the desire to wolf it down and eat more was. As we continued to eat the pizza, I became aware of an overwhelming thirst, something that never happens when I eat real food. When I discussed this with my wife, she also had the desire to eat more and more of the pizza, and she also got very thirsty.
While I have no scientific proof of this, I am convinced there was something added to the pizza to make me want more of it, and something in it that made us very thirsty, perhaps so we would order factory soft drinks.
We finished the pizza, and still felt hungry and unsatisfied. Yet we wanted more and more of the pizza, an urge we resisted. I also felt bloated and uncomfortable, a feeling I never have when I just eat real food. There were other uncomfortable digestive consequences, as my body tried to get rid of the chemicals and toxins in the pizza. I also had some headaches, something that I normally never get. And I was low energy and tired. After two days of just eating real food, I was fine. Since then, we have tried to eat one hundred percent real food, and we have been fine, without any of those unpleasant symptoms. It is clear that the “you can eat twenty percent junk†rule did not work for us.
My Eating Rule—JERF, But Don’t Stress
I try to eat real food one hundred percent of the time, yet I am fine with the fact that I will not always meet that goal. I will carefully make sure that every item of food that enters our home is real food, and nothing else. I will cook and serve nothing but real food. Once you get in the habit of doing this, it becomes a routine, and being healthy and functioning better is well worth the time, trouble, and additional expense.
The problem comes at social gatherings and restaurants, where most of the food is never real. I will often eat a large snack of real food at home, rich in animal fats, before I go out. This helps protect my body from the toxins I may ingest, and satisfies my hunger before I am exposed to factory food. When offered desserts and food items that I should not eat, I politely decline them without trying to preach the merits of real food. If it seems like an explanation is needed, I calmly and quietly explain that I am on a strict diet for my health, which is absolutely true. Most people will accept that explanation. I will eat whatever seems the closest to real food, from what is available, and I will not eat very much of it. In a restaurant, I will carefully choose food that is as free of toxins and as close to real food as I can find, and I am not shy about asking the waiter for details. I also try to eat only at restaurants that have something that is good to eat, even though I avoid most of their menu.
Now prior to eating the pizza, we had done our usual best to just eat real food for the rest of the week and the rest of our meals, so the pizza was far less than twenty percent of our diet. But it was far too much. The benefits of just eating real food are so great that we will not throw them away to indulge in junk, or to fit in with the crowd. And we do not feel deprived because we enjoy our real food so much. There is such a huge variety of foods we can eat, and they are so much better and so much more satisfying. And we do follow a rule set down by Sally Fallon Morell, the founder and president of the Weston A. Price Foundation—never eat carbs without plenty of good animal fat.
But the main rule I follow is simple, profound, and it works—JERF. Just Eat Real Food.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, and Freaky Friday blog carnivals.
Ancestral Wisdom — An Ancient Food Safety System that We Can Learn From
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
These healthy grassfed cattle will provide good meat.
The first food safety system allows the meat from animals too sick to stand to enter the meat supply. The second food safety system does not allow any meat from a sick or diseased animal to be eaten.
One is modern, and one has been in use for three thousand years. Which is more advanced? The answer is obvious. Common sense alone tells us that nobody should be eating meat from an animal to sick to stand. You might be surprised to learn that it is our own modern U.S. food safety system that allows the meat from animals too sick to stand to be eaten, and it is the ancient food safety system that forbids it.
We are taught that our modern society is far superior to all previous societies in every respect. We are taught to think of our ancestors as primitive and ignorant, especially when it comes to matters like food safety. Yet that is simply not true.
Of course, with our advanced technology, we could do much better than a three thousand year old food safety system. But we do not. Because our system is set up to maximize speed and profit, and the ancient system was set up to maximize safety.
A Tale of Two Food Safety Systems
About three thousand years ago, the kosher dietary system was set up, as part of the Jewish religion. This system has probably been modified over time, but most of it appears to have not changed. While the kosher system is better known for its restrictions on what foods can be eaten, it has definite food safety provisions relating to meat inspection that we can learn from. It is likely that many other ancient peoples followed similar principles, but what they did is not documented.
One of the key goals of the kosher inspection system was to prevent the eating of meat from sick animals. We know that many ancient peoples shared this goal. It stands to reason that nobody would want to eat the meat from a sick animal, for obvious reasons.
Every animal was inspected before slaughter. If the animal showed any signs of illness or ill health, it was rejected, and could not be used for meat. If the animal was dirty, it was rejected, and could not be used for meat. This inspection was carried out carefully, by a man who was trained to notice signs of illness. There was no time limit for the inspection. It took what it took.
If the animal passed the first inspection, it was inspected again after slaughter. Most of the internal organs of the animal were carefully examined for any sign of disease. If any sign of disease was found, all the meat of the animal was declared unclean, and could not be eaten. Again, no time limit was placed on the inspection of the internal organs of the animal. It took what it took to do a thorough job.
Our own American meat inspection system is very different. For reasons that can be only related to profit, our government allows meat from animals too sick to stand to enter the meat supply. Recently, the state of California tried to stop this practice by outlawing the use of meat from such animals. The federal government tried to stop this law. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which overthrew the California law, ruling it was preempted by Federal law. And the federal government simply has failed to ban such meat.
The other great problem is that meat animals are slaughtered and their meat is usually processed at great speed, which the industry has constantly increased, as speed means profit. What this means in reality is that the carcasses and meat from slaughtered animals move quickly past the meat inspectors on a conveyor belt, and the meat inspector is supposed to be able to see any problems as the carcasses whiz by. When it comes to chickens, a meat inspector is supposed to examine 90 chickens a minute, and it has been proposed that the rate be increased to 180 chickens a minute. Some inspectors have been quoted as saying that they cannot really notice much when they are responsible for 90 chickens a minute. Expecting anyone to be able to examine so many chickens in so short a time is beyond absurd.
Is All Kosher Meat Superior?
Not necessarily. It does not matter what the system is, unless its requirements are followed. An animal can be raised on unnatural feed and show no signs of disease. As I have written many times before, I consider grassfed meat to be far superior to grain-fed meat, and almost all kosher meat is grain-finished. Allegations have been made that not all producers of kosher meats follow the required procedures. I have no way of knowing what the truth is. The point of this article is not to advocate kosher meat, but to point out how it forbids the use of the meat of sick animals, and that we should do the same.
What We Should Do
I consider safety to be far more important than profit. Surely we can take steps to identify and remove the meat of any sick animal before it enters the food supply. We can do at least as well as a system devised three thousand years ago.
The processing of meat animals can and must be slowed down enough to allow for a thorough examination of each animal. Animals should be examined both before and after slaughter. Any that show any signs of illness should be banned from the meat supply. The meat industry should change its practices to raise healthier animals. They will do this if the meat from sick animals cannot be used. The federal government should put the safety of the meat supply above the profit of the big producers.
For now, I only eat grassfed meat. I believe that meat animals fed their natural diet, grass, grazing naturally on living grass, are healthier than factory animals. Factory animals are penned in a feedlot for months and fed GMO corn, GMO soy, and other species-inappropriate feeds. Besides, grassfed meat tastes much better, and I feel good and renewed after eating it.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, and Freaky Friday blog carnivals.
What Is a Prime Rib? This Is a (Grassfed) Prime Rib
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
A magnificent grassfed prime rib with a great fat cap and marbling.
As food becomes increasingly industrialized, we are losing more and more of our ancestral food traditions. One of my goals is to try to preserve some of those traditions. And one of the traditions I most want to preserve is the traditional prime rib roast. This tradition is thousands of years old, is absolutely delicious, and may have special nutritional factors. Yet, the tradition of the magnificent prime rib roast, once well known and popular throughout Europe and the U.S., is in danger of being forgotten.
In fact, there are many people who do not even know what a prime rib is. What is a prime rib? Look at the photo above—that is a prime rib.
The King of Roasts
A close look at this beautiful cut of meat shows what was once known as the king of roasts. This is a prime specimen, purchased from U.S. Wellness Meats, and they deserve great credit for this masterpiece.
The roast rests on the natural bones, which impart great flavor, add nutrients to the meat, and act as a natural rack. It is crowned with its own unique fat, which will provide wonderful flavor to the meat while making it tender and basting the meat as it cooks. The meat itself is divided into two sections, the large portion in the center, and a smaller portion on the front and top of the meat. These two cuts have different tastes and textures, which provide a wonderful contrast. Though grassfed, the roast is wonderfully marbled with little flecks of fat, which provide great grassfed nutrition, make the meat tender, and baste the meat internally as it cooks.
I also love the flavor of vegetables roasted in the pan with the prime rib. Vegetables flavored by the melted fat and juices are unbelievably delicious with a flavor like no others.
Prime rib has a unique taste that is brought out by roasting. It is hard to describe, but it is so delicious, and there is nothing else on earth comparable to it. I suspect, though I cannot prove it, that this taste shows the presence of a particular nutrient that I have found nowhere else. I do not know what this nutrient is, but I do know how I feel after eating grassfed prime rib. I feel rejuvenated and wonderful. And so satisfied. I can smell the presence of this taste about halfway through the roasting, and it makes me so hungry!
The Prime Rib Tradition
The chine portion of an animal, which is where the prime rib comes from, has a long history and storied reputation. In ancient times, it was reserved for heroes and royalty. Irish legend records duels to the death for the right to claim this meat. The hero Achilles barbecued meat from the chine for the kings of the Greeks at the beach of Troy, as described in the Iliad. During the height of the British Empire, the prime rib as Sunday dinner became common, with leftovers forming the basis of meals throughout the week. Prime rib was once very popular in the U.S., as well. It should be noted that the prime rib eaten during this period was always from grassfed cattle, as factory meat did not exist until the twentieth century.
It should also be noted that the chine portion, whether from cattle, lambs, pigs, goats, or bison, was always one of the most prized cuts of meat. It was always expensive, and always associated with strength and nutrition.
The sight and smell of this magnificent cut of meat, roasted to perfection, with an aroma that creates hunger as soon as it is smelled, has brought great pleasure and wonderful nutrition to countless human beings.
Yet the tradition of this king of roasts is in real danger of being lost.
How the Food Industry Is Killing the King of Roasts
The modern food industry has done a lot to kill the prime rib tradition. The factory meat it raises just does not cut it, not in taste or nutrition, and lacks the unique flavor that makes prime rib so special. Even worse, the meat industry decided to do away with skilled butchers and to come up with easy to cut and package pieces of meat. The chine portion of most cattle, even grassfed cattle, is cut into thin boneless, fatless steaks. None of these steaks can possibly come close to developing the incredible flavor and nutrition of a real prime rib roast, which requires the bones and fat, and at least a moderate cooking period to develop the unique flavor.
The anti-animal-fat phobia has resulted in most people wanting to buy meat with all the fat trimmed off, which will ruin any prime rib.
In fact, meat with bones and fat is increasingly frowned upon by government regulators and the anti-fat fanatics, who would like to see it done away with.
Cutting this portion of meat into thin steaks instead of cutting it into roasts has led to a huge price increase, which makes this meat difficult to afford. Most grassfed producers just cut the chine portion of their cattle into thin, boneless, fatless, steaks, which may taste good, but lack the real prime rib flavor. Fortunately, there are some exceptions.
If you buy a whole steer, or a half or a quarter, you can usually arrange to have the rib portion cut into roasts, with the bones and fat left on. A few producers carry prime rib roasts at holiday times. I have a great local market that cuts grassfed beef to order. And as shown above, U.S. Wellness Meats sells excellent grassfed prime rib roasts.
Make no mistake, grassfed prime rib is expensive. But you can still get a great grassfed prime rib roast for less than a restaurant dinner, and it will feed a lot of people. We do not have it often, but we will have it for special occasions, and enjoy the great pleasure and health benefits it brings.
Both Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue have several recipes for the king of roasts, which can be very easy to cook.
I submit that the tradition of the grassfed prime rib roast is well worth preserving.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Freaky Friday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Real Food Is Best with Real Cooking
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Real cooking makes holiday meals special, but it is great for everyday cooking as well.
Many people are starting to realize that the traditional food of our ancestors, real food, is much better for us than the chemical-drenched industrial stuff turned out by the big food industry. Fruits and vegetables grown without chemicals, grassfed and pastured meats, real dairy, traditional fermented foods, and other traditional foods, have nourished humankind for thousands of years, and are so much better than the factory stuff, both in taste and nutrition. Real food generally is more expensive, and is harder to find. But it is truly worth it, as you feel so much better and are likely to experience great improvements in your health, vitality, mood, mental functions, and general quality of life. Real food does a great job of supporting the natural functions. After all, real food has been supporting our bodies for uncounted thousands of years, and our bodies have adapted to thrive on it. Factory food has only been around since the twentieth century, and new artificial ingredients and processes are introduced every year.
But real food comes with a hidden price. It is not convenient. If you are really going to switch completely to real food, someone in your family is going to have to cook it. And that someone might as well be you.
The Death of Real Cooking
Once, America was full of fantastic home cooks who were proud of their cooking. This was not limited to women, as many men were proud of their skill at barbecuing and cooking meat. Cooking knowledge was passed down from generation to generation. Home-cooked food was so good that restaurants had a very hard time competing, and had to struggle to provide food that was even better than home-cooked. This posed a huge problem to the processed food industry, as it slithered into existence. Why would anyone want to eat their dead, relatively tasteless food? Much research was done, and three answers were found:
The first was to claim that packaged, factory foods were more “scientific,†and modern. People in the early twentieth century were in awe of science, and this argument alone was enough to get many people to give up lard and switch to hydrogenated vegetable fats, for example.
The second was to claim that certain traditional foods were “unhealthy,†and to finance “scientific†research to prove the so called “unhealthiness.†This was even more successful, persuading hundreds of millions of people to give up the sacred foods of their ancestors for inferior processed substitutes.
But the third technique was the most effective. Convenience. Factory packaged foods were designed to be convenient to prepare. It was much easier to add a few ingredients to a mix, or heat something in the oven or a pan, than to actually cook from scratch. Or you could pour factory dry cereal directly into a bowl, add a few things, or not, and eat it with no preparation at all. The advent of the microwave made things even faster and more convenient, as you could “nuke†a huge variety of packages for just a few minutes, and have something resembling a meal.
It took absolutely no skill or knowledge to prepare food this way, and most Americans simply gave up on cooking. Today, it is estimated that two-thirds of American adults do not know how to cook, though they can pop a package in a microwave, or pour cereal into a bowl, or buy a pre-made salad at the supermarket. People eat a huge portion of their meals at fast food joints or restaurants. But this convenience comes at a terrible price. Malnutrition. Most Americans suffer from malnutrition without even knowing it. Processed and factory foods are far inferior to real food in supporting the natural functions of our bodies. Chronic illness is at an all time high, and many of the afflicted are young adults, which is something new and disturbing. In fact, the physical condition of American youth has deteriorated to such a degree that 75% of those who try to join the military are rejected as being physically unfit to serve.
I believe that switching to real food is the ultimate solution to these problems, and it certainly worked for me and many others. But you cannot get real food out of a package, or just nuke it in a microwave and expect to have a meal. Real food requires real cooking.
Many people complain about the cost of real food, but I believe in the truth of the old saying, “Pay the farmer or pay the doctor.â€
The Return to Real Cooking
I cook just about everything from scratch, using real food ingredients. And the benefits to my well being have been enormous. I have gone from being chronically ill to healthy. If you are not used to cooking, learning how to cook might seem overwhelming. But it can be far easier than you might think. Real home cooking is simple, and consists of learning certain skills which are well within the abilities of most people. You do not need to be a fancy chef. And I will share a little secret with you. The more you cook, the easier it gets, if you are on the right path. Eventually, it becomes second nature, like riding a bicycle. And the real food you prepare will taste so much better. And you can take pride in the fact that every meal you make is truly nourishing and helping the natural functions of the people you feed, helping them to feel better and be better in every way. Another benefit is the sheer pleasure you can bring to others with a tasty, home-cooked meal of real food.
There are some excellent resources for learning how to cook real food. The Weston A. Price Foundation has a series of instructional cooking videos on their website, which are very informative and well done. I also recommend Sally Fallon Morell’s excellent cookbook, Nourishing Traditions as a great basic cookbook. It is also full of valuable nutritional information. When it comes to grassfed meat, I recommend what I use, Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue. I use them regularly. I designed them to be easy to use and traditional. While the inspiration is traditional, I have adapted these traditions to the modern kitchen.
There are other resources, as well, but learning how to cook real food is a very important part of receiving the benefits of real food. Real food deserves real cooking.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Traditional Tuesdays, Real Food Wednesday Freaky Friday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Not Fit for a Dog, or for Humans Either
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Grassfed meat and bones, the most traditional and best food for dogs.
The pack of wild dogs stalked hungrily through the tall grass, sniffing for prey. Suddenly, the pack leader stiffened as he smelled something. The pack froze, watching the leader. The leader bounded forward, and the pack followed, howling. They burst furiously out of the grass, and pounced upon a — patch of GMO soybeans?
Sounds unbelievable, does it not? Well, so does a can of vegetarian dog food. But, believe it or not, I saw such a can recently, proudly marked as “vegetarian†dog food. Not trusting my eyes, I took a look at the ingredients. They included water (the first ingredient), soymeal, soybean oil, and a host of artificial vitamins. Oh yes, there was also some brown rice. Dogs are real big on brown rice. The ingredients were described as “natural.†In reality, this means that the soy was almost certainly GMO.
Dogs are carnivores. They are designed to hunt prey and eat raw meat. Not soybeans, especially not GMO soybeans. Of course, dogs will eat this, if they get hungry enough. In fact, they will probably wolf it down, as their bodies search desperately for the vital nutrients that aren’t there. And just in case hunger is not enough, flavor-enhancing chemicals can be used to give a meaty flavor to this stuff. But that does not make it meat.
Come to think of it, soymeal and soybean oil, highly processed to remove the stench and horrible natural taste, are added to all sorts of foods made for humans. While we are omnivores, replacing meat with soy is a bad idea for us too.
In other words, processed soy is not fit for a dog—or humans either.
Would You Rather Eat Grassfed Hamburger or Soymeal?
The answer is very obvious, for most people. And almost all the people who would choose soymeal would do so because of their vegan or vegetarian beliefs, or because they are scared to eat red meat. But the reason that most humans would choose grassfed hamburger is because grassfed meat is one of the oldest and most traditional foods of humankind, a food that has nourished humankind for thousands of generations. In contrast, unfermented soy has been eaten for little more than one hundred years. And GMO soy did not even exist until the 1990s. All soy includes hormone-disrupting chemicals and other toxins, though traditionally fermented soy has much less.
To say that grassfed meat tastes better than unfermented soy is like saying water is wet. And grassfed meat and fat are full of valuable nutrients, and are not toxic. This wonderful meat provides many nutrients that our bodies crave, and make us healthier and stronger.
While the soy industry has planted all kinds of misinformation all over the Internet, trying to convince us that soy products have been eaten since the dawn of time, the truth is very different. Soy was first grown as a crop in China, thousands of years ago. This soy was not eaten at first. It was used to restore nitrogen to the soil, and would be alternated with food crops at various intervals. The fact that soy was not eaten or fed to animals tells us that the early Chinese knew it was not good to eat, as even this early, non-GMO soy had toxins, hormone disruptors, and smelled and tasted horrible. Eventually, the Chinese learned to ferment soy to make various foods. The traditional fermentation process reduced the toxins, and greatly improved the taste and smell. Even this fermented soy was only eaten in small amounts, and used mainly as a condiment and seasoning.
It was not until the twentieth century that the eating of unfermented soy really began. Industrial processing made it possible to extract large amounts of oil from soy. This oil could only be made by refining soybeans, and had never been eaten by humans before. At first it was used solely for industrial uses, but soon was used as an ingredient in processed food and as a cooking oil. The sludge left over after the oil was extracted was thrown out as smelly, slimy garbage. Then someone came up with the idea of adding this sludge to foods, as it does contain protein. This sludge is still the basis of most soy foods, though now it almost always GMO. Since this stuff is truly revolting in its natural state, it is highly processed and mixed with sweeteners and flavor enhancers. Unbelievably, soy products are marketed as “health foods.â€
I choose grassfed hamburger.
Grassfed Meat and Organs Can Be Great for Dogs, and Humans
I have often written about how grassfed meat can help people recover from all kinds of injuries, including physical ones. This applies to dogs as well as people. My friend John Wood, a terrific grassfed farmer and the founder of U.S. Wellness Meats, learned this firsthand about four years ago. John’s dog, Buck, was severely injured in an accident. The Vet found a severely broken hip, and did not think Buck would ever recover. John did not give up. He put Buck on a diet of raw grassfed meat, grassfed liver, and grassfed marrow bones. There was no surgery. John also gave Buck a very high-quality liquid calcium magnesium supplement. After three months, Buck was completely recovered. X-rays showed that the hip had healed completely.
Does anyone really think that Buck would have been healed by eating canned soymeal?
I know a number of humans, including myself, who have rebuilt their bodies and health by eating grassfed meat. So, I say that grassfed meat is fit for a dog, and humans, as both species thrive on it.
I am not a veterinarian, and am not qualified to advise people on what to feed their dogs. But no one needs to be a vet to know that feeding dogs a vegetarian soy-heavy diet from a can just does not make sense.
Related Post
Avoid Second-Hand Soy—Just Eat Grassfed
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Freaky Friday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Avoid Second-Hand Soy—Just Eat Grassfed
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
This dry-aged grassfed steak contains no soy toxins.
I was about to roast a 100% organic chicken, from a brand I had never tried before. As I washed the chicken, it just did not look right to me. I got a funny feeling that there was something wrong with this chicken. But it was 100% organic. What could be wrong with it? I roasted the chicken in a way that should have turned out delicious. But it didn’t. The chicken did not taste good, and I had indigestion after eating it.
I went to the butcher who sold it to me, who worked for a large chain store, and complained about the taste and after effects of the chicken. The butcher, who I knew well, leaned close to me, and said quietly, “This company feeds a very high percentage of soy to their chickens. I hate the way they taste. I won’t eat them myself.â€
That was the first time I learned what soy feeding could do to the taste and quality of meat. And since unfermented soy has always given me indigestion, I learned that the nasty qualities of soy could survive in the meat of animals that ate it.
But my experience was “anecdotal†and not a valid scientific study.
But now, I have learned that various scientific studies confirm my experience by reporting that the meat or eggs from animals fed soy contain soy toxins.
The best way to avoid soy toxins from meat is to JEG—just eat grassfed.
You Can Get Toxins from Second-Hand Soy
Some of the many toxins in soy are known as soy isoflavanones, and the soy industry claims they have “health benefits.†Based on the excellent book, The Whole Soy Story, by Dr. Kaayla Daniel, and my own subjective experience, I believe these substances are toxins, pure and simple.
Recently, I was fortunate enough to read an excellent article by Dr. Daniel, called Soy-ling of America: Second-Hand Soy from Animal Feeds, on the website of the Weston A. Price Foundation. I learned a lot from this article, which is the source of the data that this post is based on. My thanks to Dr. Daniel for graciously giving me permission to use information from her article.
Several studies were done that showed the presence of soy isoflavones in egg yolks and meat tissues. One study tested eighteen commercial brands of eggs to see which of them contained soy isoflavones. The study found that all eighteen brands of eggs contained soy isoflavones, even the organic and free-range varieties. One study found soy isoflavones in the meat of poultry.
While none of the studies addressed red meat, there is no reason to believe that soy isoflavones are not present in the meat of every animal fed soy.
What this means is that you can avoid every soy product, and still ingest soy toxins. They can be hidden in the meat and eggs of animals, and can cause the same sorts of problems that result from eating food that contains soy.
If you are one of the many people who are allergic to soy, it is important to realize that you can get soy just by eating meat or eggs from an animal who was fed soy. While I have seen no study on this, it is quite likely that you could also ingest soy toxins from farmed fish that were fed soymeal, which is a common feed for farmed fish. These facts are just as important to those of us who choose to avoid unfermented soy, or all soy.
How to Avoid Second-Hand Soy Toxins from Animals
So how do you avoid ingesting soy toxins from animal products? The obvious answer is to avoid eating the meat or eggs of animals or fish that have been fed soy feed. The problem is that the government does not require the labeling of soy feed in animal products, so there is no way to know if a particular conventional meat or egg comes from a soy-fed animal.
My rule is simple: just eat grassfed. Grassfed meat, raised and finished on grass alone, is fed no soy, and contains no soy toxins. You can avoid soy toxins in fish by just eating wild fish. Soy is not part of the natural diet of wild fish, obviously. I have been able to find eggs that are from chickens raised without soy feed, though they are more expensive. It is worth the extra expense, and they feel and taste much better.
And you can find chickens that are pastured and raised without soy feed. These chickens can be very expensive. I find that I do not eat much chicken these days, as I would much rather spend the money on grassfed red meat, which is so much more satisfying.
I recommend that you read Dr. Daniel’s article at the link given above, as it provides an excellent, detailed description of the problem. I am deeply grateful to Dr Daniel for her research on the dangers of soy, her excellent book, and her continuing efforts to expose the truth about this noxious substance, which has done so much harm to the health of humanity and our planet.
I am including a short bio provided by Dr. Daniel, for those who would like to know more about her and her work:
Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, is The Naughty Nutritionist™ because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths.  A popular guest on radio and television, she has been on The Dr Oz Show, ABC’s View from the Bay, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy and will appear this summer on PBS Healing Quest. Dr Daniel is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, a popular speaker at Wise Traditions and other conferences,  Vice President  of the Weston A. Price Foundation and recipient of its 2005 Integrity in Science Award. Her websites are www.naughtynutritionist.com and www.wholesoystory.com.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Freaky Friday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Enjoy your Traditionally-Cooked Grassfed Barbecue without Fear
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Barbecuing tender grassfed meat the traditional way with indirect heat.
July the Fourth is near, and that means barbecue. It is an old American tradition, and a most delicious one. Barbecues in America go all the way back to colonial times, where easy access to inexpensive meat and wood meant delicious grassfed feasts cooked with logs burned down to coals. Barbecues were huge social events, often drawing hundreds or even thousands of people, lured by the ancient pleasure of pastured and wild meat cooked with fire.
But today, many are afraid to barbecue, being concerned by studies that find that suspected carcinogenic substances are created by the barbecue process.
Not to worry. Even if these studies are accurate, you can avoid the cooking method that creates the suspect substances by using traditional techniques, which are perfect for cooking grassfed and pastured meats.
What the Studies Found
I was concerned by these studies, and I must admit I stopped barbecuing for awhile. But I really missed the wonderful flavor that can only come from real barbecue, so I decided to take a close look at the studies. I wanted to resolve this paradox. The healthy peoples studied by Dr. Weston A. Price nearly all barbecued most of their meat and fish, and they had no cancer, despite the modern studies stating that barbecuing created carcinogens. Just as puzzling was the fact that humans have been cooking with fire for uncounted thousands of years, yet cancer is a very modern disease, unknown among people eating a traditional diet. If cooking with fire created cancer, humanity might have died out a long time ago. There had to be another explanation.
I decided to start by looking at the raw data. The studies found that barbecuing created two substances that were believed to be carcinogenic. One substance was created by cooking meat over direct high heat, especially when the flames touched the meat. The second substance was created when fat from the meat dripped directly on to the heat source, which created a smoke that went into the meat.
The key is that these substances were created only when the meat was cooked directly over the heat source.
Traditional Barbecue Methods Avoid the Creation of Carcinogens
My next step was to study the barbecuing methods of traditional peoples, which I did. What I found was fascinating. Most traditional barbecue was never done directly over the heat source. This was true for most peoples all over the world, and over time. The meat was cooked in front of, never directly over the heat source. The meat was invariably cooked over a container to catch the drippings, which were used for basting and as a condiment. This meant that the meat was never cooked over direct high heat, and never touched by the flames. This also meant that fat never dripped into the fire.
There were some exceptions to this rule. Some traditional peoples grilled directly over the fire, but set the grill so high over the coals that the heat was gentle, and the flames never touched the meat. Some European cooks grilled directly over the fire. The people who wrote older cookbooks looked down on this practice, stating that it gave “a noisome stink†to the meat, or that it was the mark of a bad cook.
Some peoples cooked small pieces of heavily marinated meat over a small fire, but this was the exception. Even these people kept the heat of the fire low, and kept the flames from touching the meat. Interestingly enough, the studies found that marinating meat reduced the formation of the suspect substances by 90 percent or more.
In other words, the cooking method that creates the carcinogens was not used by most traditional peoples. Use their methods, and you will not create the potential carcinogens mentioned in the studies.
But What about the Smoke?
A number of articles have been published over the Internet that point out the toxins given off by burning wood. But this is not a problem in traditional barbecue. That is because the most common fuel was one hundred percent hardwood charcoal. Charcoal is made by burning wood under controlled conditions. The toxic chemicals burn off during the process, and are gone by the time the charcoal is made. This process goes back many thousands of years.
Barbecue experts and traditional peoples did not cook over blazing raw wood, but made sure to burn the wood down to coals before cooking. Burning the wood down to coals also burns off the toxic chemicals, which literally go up in smoke.
So you can avoid the toxins in raw wood smoke by using one hundred percent hardwood charcoal, or burning your wood down to coals. These are the most traditional ways of using wood for cooking.
How to Adapt the Tradition to Modern Barbecues
Cooking in front of, not over the fire, is very different from the way most Americans grill. Grilling over direct high heat results in the creation of the substances mentioned in the studies. I believe that this method was created to deal with the extra water in factory meat, which requires direct high heat to be somewhat palatable rather than grey and soggy.
But grassfed meat, including steaks and burgers, cooks beautifully in front of, not over the heat source. The meat is never scorched or charred, and picks up a wonderful flavor from the coals. You can avoid the risks and have a perfect cooking method for grassfed barbecue by cooking in front of, not over the heat source.
This cooking method is used in all the recipes in Tender Grassfed Barbecue, and is the method I use whenever I barbecue. This July 4th, we are going to enjoy a beautiful thick prime rib steak, cut from a beautiful grassfed roast we got from U.S. Wellness Meats. And we will enjoy without fear, following the tradition of our ancestors.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Traditional Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Freaky Friday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Paleo, Primal, and Price
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Grassfed bison meat is a healthy, basic human food that is valued by the Primal, Paleo, and Price movements. photo credit: puroticorico
The question has arisen recently on various blogs about whether the teachings of Dr. Weston A. Price are compatible with the Paleo and Primal movements. A similar question has been raised as to whether the Weston A. Price Foundation and its members are hostile to the Paleo and Primal movements.
I have studied Dr. Price’s work for years, so much so that my copy of his book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, has literally fallen apart. I have been a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation for years. I have followed a Weston A. Price style diet for over six years. I have read and studied almost every article on the vast website of the Weston A. Price Foundation. I have designed my cookbooks to be completely compatible with the teachings of Dr. Price. I have strongly advocated the Weston A. Price style of eating on my blog, and still do.
Though I am a member, I do not speak for the Weston A. Price Foundation. Nobody speaks for the Foundation except its officers, officially designated spokespeople, and board members. I speak for myself.
I consider the teachings of Dr. Price to be compatible with a number of Paleo and Primal diets.
I support, respect, and admire the Paleo and Primal movements.
We have so much in common. We are all looking for an alternative to the horrible modern diet which has destroyed the health of so many people. We all reject modern processed foods in favor of real food, food that humans have thrived on for uncounted years. We are all trying to base our diets on the wisdom of our ancestors. So many of us have had amazing health benefits from following the food wisdom of our ancestors. We are natural allies. We should unite politically to protect our access to real food. We should support, encourage, share what we know, and learn from each other. And many of us have been doing exactly that.
The Many Diets of Doctor Price
As many of us know, Dr. Price traveled the world for ten years, visiting and studying various peoples who were eating the traditional diets of their ancestors. Each one of these traditional people had relatives who were eating a modern diet in a nearby town or city, so Dr. Price was able to compare the teeth and health of those who ate traditional food to those who ate modern food. Dr. Price found that the people eating their traditional diets had perfect teeth, despite having no dental care, and were free of the modern chronic diseases that cripple and kill so many people in modern cultures, both then and today. In other words, they had no cancer, no heart disease, no birth defects, not arthritis, no asthma, no allergies, no tuberculosis, none of the modern chronic diseases. They were so much healthier than we are, in so many ways. Yet, the relatives of those people, if they made the terrible mistake of eating modern foods, lost their teeth, and suffered from all of the chronic modern diseases, unlike their cousins who ate like their ancestors.
No two of the diets studied by Dr. Price were alike. There were peoples who ate traditionally prepared grains and dairy, along with meat and vegetables. There were peoples who ate meat, dairy, and vegetables, but no grains. There were peoples who ate only the animals they hunted, and ate no dairy, grains, or vegetables. Most of these peoples ate wild seafood, but some had no access to it. All of these peoples were healthy and free of chronic disease, with perfect teeth. And they had essentially no modern medical care, and no dentistry. So we know for a fact that all of these ancestral diets worked wonderfully for human beings.
Yet, all of these diets had something in common. They all ate meat, and they all consumed large amounts of animal fat, and/or fish fat. They all fermented various foods, a process that both preserved foods and increased the nutritional value. They all had sacred foods, foods that they valued above all others. These sacred foods were rich in animal or fish fat, including such items as organ meats, fish eggs, and butter. None of these peoples ate modern processed foods, even the kinds that were available in the 1930s.
So you can follow the research results of Dr. Price, and eat or avoid a wide variety of foods. You do not have to eat grains. You do not have to eat dairy. As long as you eat real, unmodified food, and eat plenty of natural animal fat, and avoid modern processed foods, you are on the path. You can also add in traditionally prepared grains and/or dairy, and still be on the path. It depends on how you respond to various foods, what you can get, how much work you are willing to put into it, and the condition of your body. The choice is yours, and I respect your right to make it.
The Many Diets of Paleo and Primal
There is no single Paleo or Primal diet. There are dozens of variations. Some allow some dairy and/or grains. Some do not. These diets are constantly evolving and changing as more is learned, a healthy and vital process that is great for the movement. Yet, all of these diets seek to eat the foods that our ancestors thrived on, and look to the wisdom of our ancestors in choosing food. Many of them seek to eat foods similar to those eaten before the advent of agriculture. No one knows for sure what Paleolithic people ate. We can make some pretty good guesses, based on what people without agriculture or herds have eaten in recorded history, and based on what some of the peoples studied by Dr. Price ate. Some of the details of what we do know are surprising. For example, some people who had no dairy animals ate animal milk. They did so by killing female animals, and eating the milk they found in the body. They would also kill young animals, such as bison calves, and eat the milk they found in the digestive system of the animal. We know that the Native Americans did this, and there is no reason to believe that any people who lived by hunting did not do the same. My point is that ancestral eating covers a huge range of foods.
I have spent a huge amount of time lurking on various Paleo and Primal blogs, and reading a huge number of articles. It is clear to me that no one in the movement actually wants to dig in the earth for bugs, or grab a spear and hunt for mammoth. The focus is on eating the foods of our ancestors, the foods we have eaten for a very long time, the foods that our bodies are accustomed to, the foods that we thrive on. That is a wonderful goal, and I share it.
What Does the Weston A. Price Foundation Actually Do about Paleo and Primal?
I am speaking only from my own observations, as I do not speak for the Weston A. Price Foundation. As I see it, the view of WAPF has changed with the evolvement and change of the Paleo and Primal movements.
The initial book by Dr. Cordain advocated a low-fat diet, which was totally opposed to the teachings of Dr. Price, and the book was not well received for that reason, and others. But many in the Paleo and Primal movements understand the value of traditional animal fats, and even Dr. Cordain has backed off that position. One of the things I love about these movements is the willingness to learn and change as more is discovered. And these changes in position have had an impact.
I think it is the most recent actions of WAPF that are most relevant to the issue. In March 2012, my friend Sarah Pope, a member of the board of the Weston A. Price Foundation, attended the PaleoFX12 convention is Austin, Texas, as a representative of the Weston A. Price Foundation. Sarah took part in a panel discussion, had a wonderful time, and had her picture taken with some Paleo leaders, such as Robb Wolf and Nora Gedgaudas. She wrote two positive blog posts about the conference, and mentioned how the Paleo movement “has much in common with the nutritional principles of Dr. Price.†It is clear that the hand of friendship was extended and accepted. And that is exactly the way it should be.
The Paleo, Primal, and Price Movements Are Already Learning from each Other
Anyone who reads a number of Paleo blogs knows that many Paleo people like the teachings of Dr. Price and WAPF, and have adopted some of the traditional methods of food preparation taught by WAPF. In fact, I have seen a great deal of praise for Price and WAPF methods on many Primal blogs and forums. Conversely, many Price followers have learned from the Primal and Paleo communities and changed their diets. I have three good friends who have followed a WAPF diet for years. They have experienced great health benefits, but have had some bad problems at times. All three of my friends have modified their diets by adopting some Paleo principles, including avoiding grains, and have had wonderful results with their customized “Price-Paleo†diets.
I myself have adopted some Paleo and Primal ideas in what I eat, and the results have been great!
All of us are individuals, we are all different, and what works for some may not work for all. But friendship between the Paleo, Primal, and Price movements benefits all of us.
I am grateful for the Weston A. Price Foundation, whose priceless knowledge enabled me to save my life and restore my health. And I am grateful to the Paleo and Primal movements, which have inspired so many people to reject SAD and adopt ancestral eating, and has taught me some valuable lessons.
Related Posts
A Real Paleo Diet — Grassfed Meat, Fat, and Organ Meats
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
« Previous Page — Next Page »