Photos of recipes from the new book Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Photos of recipes from the cookbook Tender Grassfed Meat
Eating the Whole Wild Fish
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
photo credit: phoosh
Why does a blog devoted to grassfed meat mention fish? I eat fish too. I consider some seafood to be important for a balanced diet.
But more importantly, the quality of most fish sold in the U.S. has become just as compromised as the quality of feedlot beef.
Today I had an absolutely fantastic whole wild fish for lunch, which inspired me.
Farmed Fish are Not the Same as Wild Fish
When I was a child, just about all fish were wild, eating their natural food, which was usually a smaller kind of fish. Fish were often very fresh, often caught near the place where they were sold, and packed with all kinds of nutrients that they received from their natural diet. Fish were also very cheap, except for a few very expensive varieties.
In some areas (especially Asia), freshwater fish were farmed in tranquil ponds, ponds that were full of the natural food of such fish.
Times sure have changed. Most fish sold in U.S. stores have been farmed and frozen. The fish at fish farms are fed a variety of substances, but the feed often contains substantial amounts of GMO soy, something that was never fed to fish before. Much fish feed consists of various kinds of fishmeal, which consists of the bodies of smaller fish that have gone through industrial processing to be turned into meal. Other substances are also used, which are not part of the natural diet of fish.
I have not seen any studies, but wild fish eating their natural diet tastes much better to me than any farmed fish. When food is natural, truly natural, the way it tastes is a message to you from your body as to whether you should keep eating it. I believe this to be a good indication of how nutritious the food is. Obviously, the use of chemicals and flavor enhancers can confuse this taste system, which is yet another good reason to eat only food that is free of chemicals and unprocessed. Good food is also satisfying, meaning you do not have to eat huge amounts of it to be satiated and full. I have found farmed fish to be watery and tasteless. Farmed fish never satisfied me.
The oceans, lakes, and rivers have become seriously polluted, and some of the pollutants find their way into the fat and flesh of some fish. Mercury especially is a concern.
Even the wild fish you buy may have been frozen twice, if it is cut into fillets. That is because these fish are frozen when they are caught, then shipped to China where they are defrosted, cut into fillets, and refrozen, then shipped back to the U.S. to be sold in the markets. They are often defrosted a second time and put on the counter.
Fish has also become very expensive, farmed or wild.
Most people only see fish in the form of boneless, skinless fish fillets. This was not the way our ancestors ate fish. Wild fish were caught, and often cooked the same day, whole, with all their nutrients. Large fish were often cut into thin strips, and dried or fermented to provide food that could be stored. Some medium-size fish were preserved by smoking and salting, as were pieces of larger fish. Some fish were cut up and preserved by salting. Salt cod became a staple food all over Europe.
How I Find Healthy Wild Fish
It took a while, but I finally found a way to get wild fish that satisfies me.
The best way to get fish is to catch your own, preferably from waters that are only lightly polluted, and process them yourself. This is beyond the circumstances of many of us.
What I do is buy small or medium-sized whole fish, and cook the whole thing in one piece. Best to leave the head on for flavor, but you do not have to. I will later use the bones and head for fish broth, a wonderful elixir that is said to cure anything. There is an excellent recipe for fish broth in Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon Morell.
I try to buy fish from the less polluted waters such as Alaskan waters.
The small size of the fish means that it has not absorbed much mercury.
The fact that it is whole means it has not been filleted in China, with the necessary defrosting and refreezing.
The fact that it is wild means that it was eating its natural diet when caught, and should be rich in nutrients.
I will also buy fillets if they appear to have been frozen only once, and have not gone the China route. A few wonderful markets process whole fish and cut them into fillets themselves, rather than subcontracting the job to China.
I will even buy flash-frozen fish fillets, as flash freezing of a quickly frozen fish preserves freshness (though it can never compare with a truly fresh fish), if I am convinced that it was only frozen once.
Just like grassfed meat is vastly superior to the industrial variety in taste and nutrition—whole wild fish are far superior to the farmed variety.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Related Post
Smelt Soup for Natural Iodine
A Real Paleo Diet — Grassfed Meat, Fat, and Organ Meats
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
photo credit: tuchodi
The idea behind the Paleo diet makes a great deal of sense. For tens of thousands of years, humans have been eating the foods available during the Paleolithic period. Our bodies have adapted to use these foods and easily digest and process them. Our bodies know how to use the nutrients in these foods, and how to dispose of the waste in these foods.
But what is the Paleo diet? What did Paleolithic peoples really eat?
The Paleo diet is generally agreed to consist of foods that were only available during the Paleolithic period, before agriculture and the keeping of domestic animal herds had been developed. All grains, dairy products, all modern processed foods and oils are excluded. Wild meat, fish, roots, shellfish, berries, fruits, eggs, some tree nuts, vegetables, and edible fungi such as mushrooms are included.
Some say that the Paleo diet should be meat-heavy. with an emphasis on lean meats. Others say it can be mostly fruits and vegetables. Some say it should be high-fat, and others say it should be low-fat. But what did the Paleolithic peoples really eat?
A true Paleolithic diet was discovered and recorded by Dr. Weston A. Price, the great food researcher. In 1933, Dr. Price visited a native people living in the far north of Canada, far from the sea. These people were eating the same diet their ancestors had, consisting only of foods that were readily available during the Paleolithic period.
These people had no agriculture, and no herds. They were so far north that they were deprived of all fruits and vegetables for most of the year. They were far from the sea, and the rivers were so frozen that there were no fish. In fact, they ate very little other than the wild animals they hunted, often moose.
They ate not only the meat of the animals, but the organs, and the fat, especially the fat. Meat was always eaten with fat. They also ate bone marrow, chewed on the bones, and used the bones in cooking. The animals they ate were mainly herbivores, grass-eaters, so they were eating grassfed meat and fat, and the organs of grassfed animals. And just about nothing else.
Dr. Price found that these people were in excellent health, strong, happy, and vital. Though the temperature would often be seventy below zero during the long, cold winters, these people had learned how to keep warm and well-fed. The women would give birth quickly and easily, to healthy children who were free of birth defects. They had no dentists, and no cavities. Despite the extreme cold, nobody had arthritis. They did not have heart disease or cancer. They did not have diabetes or any of the chronic diseases so common in the modern world.
Dr. Price wanted to know why they did not get scurvy, a disease caused by the lack of Vitamin C that causes teeth to fall out, and eventually results in death. Dr. Price learned that they got the Vitamin C they needed by eating the adrenal glands and second stomachs of the animals they hunted. Scientific research later confirmed that the adrenal glands of grassfed animals were the richest known source of Vitamin C, containing far more than any fruit or vegetable. These native people knew what part of the animal to eat, so they could get the nutrition they needed. In fact, they got all their vitamins and minerals from the fat, organs and bones of the animals they hunted.
These people were so free from crime that nobody locked their doors, and nothing was ever stolen.
After Dr. Price left these people, he traveled south, and studied the native peoples he met on the way. Many of these people had adopted modern food like jam, sugar, syrup, and bread. The native peoples eating modern foods were riddled with disease, many suffering from crippling arthritis. Tuberculosis, cancer, and tooth decay were very common.
Dr. Price’s research described a true Paleolithic diet, and the wonderful health of the people who followed it.
While this is not the only Paleolithic diet, it shows how beneficial a true Paleolithic diet can be.
This post is part of Monday Mania and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
Diabetes Study Proves Nothing about Grassfed Meat
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
photo credit: Alan Vernon. Bison grazing in Yellowstone National Park.
Once again, we are hit with yet another study claiming that red meat increases our chances of getting a horrible disease—Type 2 diabetes. It joins a host of other studies claiming that eating red meat increases the chances of just about every chronic disease you can think of. In fact, since humanity ate mainly red meat and saturated animal fat for most of its existence, we must be extinct, since all those diseases would have wiped us out long ago, when we got almost all our calories from meat and fat. All of these studies still have one thing in common. They totally fail to distinguish between the factory meat that did not exist until the twentieth century; and grassfed and wild meat, which has been the basic food of humanity for most of its existence. Since all the studies claiming that meat is unhealthy are based on people eating factory meat, these studies are totally meaningless when it comes to grassfed meat.
Grassfed Meat Is Different
There are many differences between the composition of grassfed meat, and factory meat.
Grassfed Meat Has:
- A perfect balance of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids;
- Considerably more CLA (conjugated linoleic acid);
- The benefits of having the animals eat the food they were evolved to eat, which is natural for them;
- A natural balance of nutrients, which our bodies have evolved to use over hundreds of thousands of years, if not more.
Factory Meat Has:
- A gross imbalance of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids, which does not occur in nature;
- Far less CLA;
- The detriments of having the animals eat a totally unnatural diet in the feedlot, including GMO soy, GMO corn, animal by-products, restaurant waste, and many other things that were never the natural food of grass-eating animals;
- An unnatural balance of substances in the meat, often including growth hormones, antibiotics, chemical residues, and others.
The very composition of the two kinds of meat is so different that consumption of factory meat is very different than eating grassfed meat.
The Study Fails to Prove that Eating Red Meat Increases the Risk of Diabetes
As I once wrote before, it is crucial to study the study before you blindly believe the conclusions drawn from the data. I have carefully looked at the latest study, and my own opinion is that it has no proof that any kind of unprocessed meat increases the risk of diabetes.
Why did I reach this conclusion?
The study concluded that eating red meat was associated with an increase in Type 2 diabetes, and seemed to recommend that people stop eating red meat on a regular basis.
But the data was inconclusive, with even the scientists who conducted the study admitting that it was hard to pinpoint the actual dietary factors that caused an increase in Type 2 diabetes risk.
The study was limited to roughly 60,000 doctors and nurses, and consisted mainly of reviewing food questionnaires sent in by the participants over a multi-year period.
The study did find a correlation in increased Type 2 diabetes risk by those who ate the most red meat. The increase for those who ate unprocessed meat was approximately one-third the risk increase of those who ate processed meat. But the data also showed the following:
- Those who ate more meat also consumed more sugary soft drinks;
- Those who ate more meat also ate considerably more calories, which almost certainly included a lot of refined high-carbohydrate foods;
- Those who ate more meat drank more alcohol.
Many studies and other research have shown that increased consumption of sugar (from the soft drinks), alcohol, and refined high-carb foods is directly related to causing Type 2 diabetes.
The people who ate more sugar, more alcohol, and more refined carbohydrates had a higher incidence of diabetes, which is exactly what you would expect, regardless of their meat consumption. Since we know that sugar, refined carbohydrates, and alcohol can cause Type 2 diabetes, the amount of meat eaten proves nothing.
But what about the result that eating processed meat had a much higher risk factor than eating unprocessed meat?
The answer is simple. Almost all factory-processed meats contain substantial amounts of added sugar, whether in the form of sucrose, fructose, dextrose, or just sugar. In addition, almost all factory-processed meats contain substantial amounts of industrial salt, which often has sugar added to it. In other words, the people who consume more of these processed meats are consuming more sugar. In other words, the sugar added to the processed meat would increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes, all by itself.
It is totally unknown whether the consumption of meat has any relevance at all to the risk of Type 2 diabetes, because you cannot separate it from the consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrates in this study. It is impossible to know whether the increase was caused just by the higher intake of sugar, alcohol, and refined carbohydrates; or by the combination of this with more red meat; or by red meat alone.
Although I believe the researchers to be sincere, their conclusion that red meat causes an increase in the risk of Type 2 diabetes is not supported by the data in their study, in my opinion. It is also clear from reviewing the remarks of the researchers in various articles that they already believed that eating red meat is unhealthy.
I will point out that this study, like all the others, failed to distinguish between eating grassfed meat and factory meat.
But there is an earlier study that addressed the affect of eating wild and grassfed meat on chronic disease. Dr. Weston A. Price spent ten years traveling around the world to study the diets of traditional peoples. Most of the peoples he studied ate plenty of wild game, and/or grassfed meat and fat. As long as these people ate their traditional diet, they had none of the chronic diseases common to the modern world. They had no cancer. They had no heart disease. And they had no Type 2 diabetes.
It is reasonable to conclude that if eating red meat caused Type 2 diabetes, the peoples studied by Dr. Price would have a diabetes epidemic, because they ate so much wild and grassfed red meat. But since they had no diabetes at all, it is equally reasonable to conclude that eating wild or grassfed red meat did not increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes. I will also point out that these people did not eat sugar or refined carbohydrates, and their diet was considerably lower in carbohydrates than modern diets. Of course many other factors were involved, but you cannot deny the fact that they ate large amounts of wild and grassfed red meat, and they did not get diabetes.
As a personal observation, I know many people, including myself, who eat red grassfed meat on a regular basis. I eat it almost every day, sometimes several times a day. I love it. It makes me feel good and gives me strength. None of those people, including me, have any symptoms of Type 2 diabetes. Not a scientific study, just real life observation.
Finally, I do not eat factory meat. It tastes like blah, and makes me feel stuffed rather than great. I love grassfed meat!
This post is part of Monday Mania, Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Traditional Drink Cools and Restores Nutrients
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
Cool, refreshing, nutritious traditional drink Ayran.
The United States is suffering from a widespread heat wave. The heat causes people to lose electrolytes, water, and minerals through sweating. Traditional peoples also suffered from hot weather. But they developed their own ways of cooling down. One of the oldest and easiest is a drink called Ayran, which also has other names.
Ayran was probably developed in Turkey, but it is widely used in the Middle East and the Balkans. While there are only two to four ingredients, the details and proportions differ, and there are many different versions.
Ayran includes old-fashioned, full-fat unflavored yogurt, and water. Salt is often added, sometimes mint leaves. The yogurt is full of nutrients that replenish a sweating body. The fat in the yogurt also provides energy. The salt not only replenishes lost salts, but minerals. The drink is very cooling and refreshing, and really helps deal with the heat. Ayran has no sweeteners and no chemicals, being a very pure drink.
It is best to use organic or the equivalent full-fat plain yogurt, which is what was used traditionally. Unrefined sea salt is ideal for this recipe, as it contains many minerals.
It is quite common for the drink to separate in the refrigerator. If this happens, a brisk stirring with a long fork will solve the problem.
Here is the version I like best:
Makes one quart. (You can double the recipe if you wish.)
INGREDIENTS
1 pound full-fat unflavored yogurt, preferably organic or the equivalent
2 cups cold filtered water
½ teaspoon unrefined sea salt
- Combine all ingredients in a blender or mixer. Blend for 1 minute.
- Chill in the refrigerator for at least 1 hour.
- If the mixture has separated, stir briskly until it recombines, which should happen very quickly.
Serve and enjoy this cooling drink.
This post is part of Real Food Wednesday, Fight Back Friday and Monday Mania blog carnivals.
Finally! Modern Study Proves the Benefits of Grassfed Meat
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
Eating this delicious grassfed steak will increase the omega-3s in your bloodstream. Much tastier than fish oil!
I have been convinced for a long time that eating grassfed meat is much healthier than eating feedlot factory meat. Our ancestors ate grassfed meat, and thrived on it. The healthy peoples studied by Dr. Weston A. Price ate grassfed and wild meat, and thrived on it. Many studies have shown that grassfed and grass-finished meats have much higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a perfect balance of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids, and a much higher level of CLA.
But the factory meat industry has been able to produce other studies claiming that the difference in omega-3 fatty acid content between grass-finished and feedlot meat is minimal. It has also been claimed that any difference is meaningless, since the omega-3 fatty acids are supposedly destroyed when cooked.
Yet there has been no study on the issue of whether people actually get more omega-3 fatty acids when eating grassfed and grass-finished meat instead of feedlot meat. Until now.
An Irish study, reported in the British Journal of Nutrition has shown that people who eat grassfed meat have significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood when compared to people eating feedlot meat.
The study was of healthy people. All the meat eaten by one group was grassfed and grass-finished. All the meat eaten by the other group was feedlot meat. I assume the meat was cooked, as the abstract of the study would have mentioned if the meat was raw. After four weeks, the blood of the two groups was tested.
The blood of the group that ate grassfed meat showed significant increases in omega-3 fatty acid levels. It fact, the increase was so dramatic that it was comparable to the omega-3 levels of people taking fish oil capsules. The omega-3 levels in the blood of the group eating feedlot meat were much lower than the grassfed group.
This is very important, because the Standard American Diet (SAD) is totally unbalanced in favor of omega-6 fatty acids. Most Americans have a large imbalance of omega-6 fatty acids.
An excess of omega-6 fatty acids has been associated with a substantially increased risk of cancer, heart disease, obesity, rapid aging, and many other problems. Many doctors advise their patients to take fish oil capsules to help with the imbalance, as a proper balance can help reduce the risk of all these illnesses.
I would much rather enjoy the wonderful taste and tenderness of grassfed meat, as a delicious way to increase the omega-3s in my blood.
In other words, I will continue to eat grassfed meat as a way to support the natural functioning of my heart and body. I will also continue to eat grassfed meat because it tastes so much better.
Now we finally have a well-conducted scientific study that confirms the lessons of history, tradition, and common sense—grassfed and grass-finished meat is much better than feedlot meat.
This post is part of Real Food Wednesday, Fight Back Friday and Monday Mania blog carnivals.
When It Comes to Meat — Study the Studies First
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
Grass—the ideal food for cattle
It was the first hour of the first class on my first day in law school. The teacher, a man who actually practiced law during the day, and taught it at night, wrote a statement on the blackboard. I can still see the words in my mind. “There is no truth.”
Being a believer in the truth of science in that time, I had to challenge that. I asked, “But what about scientific truth, established by properly conducted studies?”
The teacher, an attorney of vast experience, answered—“No matter what position you take in a lawsuit, you can always find an expert to support it, and the expert can always find studies to support his position. You will find an expert who will testify that 2 plus 2 equals 3, and the other side will find an expert who will testify that 2 plus 2 equals 5. And each of them will find studies to support their completely contradictory positions. That is why there is no truth, at least not when you are practicing law.”
After more than a quarter century as an attorney, I found his words to be absolutely true. Whenever there was an issue of science, psychology, medicine, or just about anything else, each side in the lawsuit was able to find an expert, often a superbly qualified scientist, to support their position. And every expert was able to find studies to support his or her support of that position.
This is not to say that every scientist is corrupt. But it does show that scientists who study the same issue often come up with results that contradict each other. The differences arise from the details of the study, the assumptions made that will be accepted as fact but not tested, and the bias, both subconscious and actual, of a scientist whose future income depends on pleasing the customer who is paying for the study. It is crucial to understand these factors before you accept the conclusions of a study as true.
Let us look at the studies on meat, for example. We have been bombarded for the last fifty years with study after study that claims that meat is unhealthy. According to various studies, meat causes heart disease, cancer, strokes, aging, and many other illnesses. In fact, if you believe all of these studies, it seems impossible for humanity to exist—given the fact that most generations of humans ate mainly meat and fat, you would have expected our ancestors to have died out from all these diseases long ago, rather than thriving and multiplying.
I have read study after study about meat. And one crucial fact emerges—nearly all of these studies treat all meat, whether raised with or without artificial hormones, raised with or without subtherapeutic antibiotics, fed their natural diet or an artificial one, fresh, or heavily processed meats loaded with preservatives and artificial chemicals, as being the same for the purposes of the study.
I have always found the assumption that all meat is the same to be flawed. This assumption makes it impossible to tell if the results are caused by the meat or by the chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and preservatives added to some of the meat.
Two Swedish studies have shown how vital this detail is. The first study, done on Swedish women, treated all meat as being the same, and found that eating “meat” increased the risk of stroke. This study was heavily publicized by the Reuters news agency.
The second study, done on Swedish men, differentiated between fresh meat and processed meats. This study found that fresh meat made no difference in the risk of stroke. This study also found that eating meats processed with chemicals and preservatives did increase the risk of stroke, as shown in this article.
The conclusion I draw from these studies is that it is the chemicals and preservatives added to processed meats that are to blame for the increased stroke risk, not the meat itself.
I am aware of only one study that reviews the effect of grassfed meats on human health, but that study is the most extensive ever done. Dr. Weston A. Price studied traditional peoples eating the diets of their ancestors. Dr. Price actually visited every people he studied. The study lasted ten years, and is described in detail in Dr. Price’s magnificent book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Dr. Price did not let bias interfere with his analysis—a very spiritual man, he had hoped and expected that these healthy peoples would be vegetarian, but faithfully reported the fact that they thrived on animal foods.
Most of the peoples studied by Dr. Price ate plenty of meat and fat as part of their traditional diet. The meat was grassfed or wild. No chemicals. None of these people had cancer, or heart disease, or stroke, or any of the chronic diseases that plague modern society.
Part of the findings of Dr. Price’s study is that grassfed meat and fat do not cause disease, but support the natural functions of the body, enabling these people to thrive. This is a conclusion I completely agree with.
This post is part of Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Related Post
In Defense of Nutritious, Delicious Grassfed Butter
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
Toothmarks show that this is the right amount of butter, as inspired by Sally Fallon Morell.
The domination of our government by the large agricultural industry has led to some of the most ignorant and ill-advised nutritional advice in the history of our planet. I thought the idiotic “food pyramid” with its emphasis on dead carbohydrates as the foundation of diet and its demonizing of healthy fats and protein was as bad as it was going to get.
I truly did underestimate our government. The replacement for the “food pyramid,” “MyPlate,” is even worse.
The first clue as to how bad this is comes when you look at the plate, at “choosemyplate.gov.” The plate has sections for fruit, vegetables, grains, and protein. There is also a small circle labeled dairy. The text on the page informs us that the dairy should be 1% fat, or less. But there is no place for the most important food group, fats. To our government, fat is no longer a food.
I know that the most nutritious food ever discovered is the butter from grassfed animals. But where in “MyPlate” is the butter?
How the Government Sees Butter
The “MyPlate” page includes a link to “My-Food-a-Pedia,” a huge compendium of marketing and misinformation. In My-Food-a-Pedia, all solid fats, including butter and the healthy fat of grassfed animals, are lumped together in a group called “others.” Like a group of alien invaders. Besides “solid fats,” the “others” include added sugar and alcohol. There is no difference between butter and candy bars? Or butter and light beer? Or butter and whiskey? At least, according to our government all these foods are the same. According to our government, the amount of “others” in our diet is to be strictly limited.
The links included a window listing the various food groups. I looked at each of them, to see where butter was classified. Where’s the butter? Butter is not a vegetable. Butter is not a fruit. Butter is not a grain. Butter is not protein. Butter is not even dairy. Butter, as a “solid fat” is included in a group called “Empty Calories.” “Empty Calories” are defined as items that have “little or no nutritional value,” but a lot of calories.
So, according to our government, butter has “little or no nutritional value.”
This is the equivalent of saying that ice is hot, or water is dry, or the moon is made of green cheese. It is absolutely not true.
Butter Is the Most Nutrient-Dense Food on Earth
Butter is full of nutrients, and the factors needed to absorb and use them. Here is a list of some of the nutrients in grassfed butter:
- Retinol, the real Vitamin A;
- Vitamin D;
- Vitamin K;
- Vitamin E;
- The substance Dr. Weston A. Price named “Activator X”: Vitamin K2
- Arachidonic acid;
- Short and medium chain fatty acids;
- Omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, in perfect balance with each other:
- CLA;
- Lecithin;
- Glycosphingolipids;
- Trace minerals;
- And many others.
An excellent article explaining the nutrients in butter and other good animal fats, and how the body uses them, can be found at The Skinny on Fats.
Little or no nutrition? Hogwash.
Why this Matters
The utter demonization of butter and animal fat, to the point of denying that it is even a food, has consequences.
This is much more than a bad joke. The government forces schools and other institutions that get government aid to comply with nutritional guidelines. It controls the diet of our military. It controls the diet of many medical facilities and rest homes. If the government insists that the guidelines be followed, butter and natural animal fat could be banned from the schools, and many other institutions. This could lead to a nutritional disaster that is even worse than the one we are experiencing today.
I will eat my butter and cover “my plate” in it!
This post is part of Real Food Wednesday, Fight Back Friday and Monday Mania blog carnivals.
Why Grassfed Meat Is Worth It
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
Barbecued Grassfed Bone In Porterhouse Steak
Most of the people I know eat factory meat. When I encourage them to try grassfed, they have two major objections.
The first objection is the belief that grassfed meat is “tough.” Grassfed meat is exquisitely tender when cooked properly. But grassfed meat must be cooked differently than factory meat, because it is a very different product. That is why I wrote Tender Grassfed Meat, which contains detailed instructions on the proper cooking of this wonderful food.
But the biggest objection, the one that convinces most people not to buy it, is the price. Grassfed meat costs more per pound than most factory meat. That is a fact. But price is not everything. Grassfed meat is worth the additional price to me. Why?
- Grassfed meat is almost always raised without artificial hormones and regular doses of antibiotics, unlike factory meat;
- Grassfed meat is not fattened in a feedlot on foods unnatural to cattle;
- Grassfed meat is the meat humanity has been eating for tens of thousands of years, with factory meat being created in the last century;
- Grassfed meat is far more nutrient-dense than factory meat, having the nutrient profile are bodies have evolved to use;
- Grassfed meat shrinks much less in cooking, so you are buying more meat and less water;
- Grassfed meat satisfies the appetite;
- Grassfed meat tastes much better.
Grassfed Meat Is Raised Without Artificial Growth Hormones
Most factory beef is given artificial growth hormones, and given regular doses of antibiotics. Both of these practices result in the factory steer growing and fattening much faster than a grassfed steer. While this increases profits, concerns have been raised about the effect of these practices, which are not natural. Many countries ban the use of these hormones. The medical profession and many scientists have objected to the regular feeding of antibiotics to cattle, stating that it could cause the growth of bacteria that is antibiotic-resistant.
Every grassfed meat producer I know makes a point out of the fact that they do not use artificial growth hormones or regular doses of antibiotics.
Grassfed Meat Is Not Fattened in a Feedlot
Factory cattle spend the last 90 to 180 days of their lives crowded together in a feedlot, eating foods that are inappropriate for cattle, such as GMO soy and GMO corn, and many other unnatural foods. This changes the natural balance of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids dramatically (see this fine article at EatWild.com Health Benefits of Grass-Fed Products), deprives the cattle of the nutrients that are present only in green, living grass, and results in meat that is spongy and full of water.
True grassfed cattle are out on the pasture where they belong, eating the foods they have evolved to eat, and have a perfect balance of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids, and many other nutrients that are depleted or missing in feedlot cattle.
Grassfed Meat Is the Food Humanity Has Been Eating for Tens of Thousands of Years
The meat and fat from grassfed animals is one of the oldest human foods. Humans have been eating this meat for tens of thousands of years, maybe much longer. Our bodies have evolved to eat, digest, and process this food, and need the nutrients in the fat, meat, and organs.
Factory meat was invented in the last century, and has been eaten widely for less than 60 years. Our bodies have no meaningful experience with it, in evolutionary terms.
Grassfed Meat Is Far More Nutrient-Dense Than Factory Meat
Credible studies have shown that grassfed meat gives you far more important nutrients than factory meat. This includes far more omega-3 fatty acids, in an ideal ratio to omega-6 fatty acids, much more CLA (a nutrient that helps the body maintain normal weight and cell structure), and many other vital nutrients (see Health Benefits of Grass-Fed Products).
Factory meat has a huge imbalance of too much omega- 6 fatty acids, far less CLA, and less of the other nutrients.
Grassfed Meat Shrinks Much Less in Cooking
Factory meat may be cheaper on a per pound basis, but much of the cheaper meat you are buying is water. Factory meat will often release much water into a pan when cooked, and will shrink dramatically when cooked. That is why cooking with really high heat is so popular when cooking factory meat—the high heat is needed to deal with the water. This applies to every form of cooking, including roasting, grilling, and sautéing.
Grassfed meat will shrink very little when roasted, grilled, or sautéed, and does not release water into the pan.
Grassfed Meat Satisfies the Appetite
I find that I eat about half as much meat now. This is because I switched to grassfed meat, and grassfed meat is so nutrient-dense that I am satisfied with much less meat. After I have eaten a nice serving of grassfed meat and fat, my hunger ends, and I am satisfied.
I was never satisfied when eating factory meat. No matter how much I ate, my body was still hungry for something that was not there.
The natural balance of nutrients in grassfed meat and fat gives our bodies exactly what they need, and hunger ends.
Grassfed Meat Tastes Much Better
Americans have been marketed into believing that the dull, flavorless taste of factory beef is what they like. All factory beef tastes pretty much the same. No wonder most people cover the meat in catsup and other condiments.
Grassfed meat has a richness and depth of flavor that is wonderful to experience. The taste of grassfed meat will vary, depending on the breed, grass condition, age, aging process, actual plants eaten, and other factors. The wide variety in delicious tastes is something I enjoy. Grassfed meat must be properly cooked to have these flavors released, but the taste is so much better. Grassfed meat does not need much in the way of seasoning to be terrific, and a simple combination of traditional ingredients is all that is needed. Tender Grassfed Meat is full of recipes that demonstrate this delicious fact.
After years of eating grassfed only, I experimented with some factory meat. This factory meat was free of hormones and antibiotics, but came from a feedlot. I cooked it with one of my favorite pre-grassfed period recipes. It could not begin to compare with the taste, texture, and joy of eating grassfed meat.
Grassfed meat is worth the extra per pound price. There are a number of ways to greatly reduce the price, such as looking for the frequent specials, and buying a quarter, half, or even a whole steer. Grassfed is worth it.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Earth Day, Grassfed Meat, and Dr. Weston A. Price
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
Happy cows grazing on rich grass grown on soil restored by John Wood of U.S. Wellness Meats.
Earth Day was created to appreciate and encourage the preservation of the natural blessings of our planet. Perhaps the greatest threat to our planet and ourselves is the massive loss of good soil that has been going on since the last century. Without good soil, most life cannot ultimately survive. The attack on our soil has been led by the chemical industry, and factory farmers who abuse the land, killing the very life in the soil, causing erosion, and a reduction in usable water. Massive soil erosion leads to deserts. Yet it is not too late to save and restore our soil.
Conventional science, with its incomplete knowledge and obsessive focus on grants and profits, is not going to save us. In fact, it is the products of conventional science, such as pesticides, artificial fertilizers, modified plants and germs, and massive chemical pollution from artificial chemicals that are the greatest cause of the problem. But nature itself can save us, if we have the humility and wisdom to follow nature’s laws.
Nature itself has left a blueprint on how to make good soil, and tens of millions of desert acres have been turned into fertile grasslands, with long-dead rivers and streams coming back to life as part of the process. This was accomplished by following nature’s laws.
Dr. Weston A. Price, the pioneer who discovered the truth about nutrition, said it this way:
“Life in all its fullness is nature’s laws obeyed.”
Why Good Soil is Crucial for Life
Soil that will nourish healthy life is much more than just dirt. It is a magnificent combination of minerals, bacteria, insects, microbes, and many nutrients (including unknown substances), all coming together to form the very source of life.
Plants need soil to grow, and soil needs plants to hold it in place against wind and rain, or it just erodes away. The nutrients in the soil grow the plants that keep the soil in place.
These nutrients nourish the plants that grow in this good soil, and the nutrients go into the plants, which pass these nutrients on to the people and animals who eat them. Food plants grown in good soil contain many vital nutrients that we all need to be fully healthy. Animals grazing on these rich plants develop nutrients in their flesh, fat and organs which are crucial for human health, and which are only there if the animals get all the nutrients they require.
It is crucial to understand that science has not identified all of these nutrients, and does not know everything about how they work together. But our bodies know, and expect all these nutrients to be there in the food we eat.
Dr. Weston A. Price discovered that traditional peoples eating the diets of their ancestors, foods from animals grazing on rich soil, plants grown in rich soil, or seafood taken from the rich ocean, were immune to tooth decay. This immunity went far beyond tooth decay, as these people did not have cancer, heart disease, asthma, allergies, birth defects, mental problems, or any of the host of chronic diseases that torment modern humanity. Dr. Price understood that good soil was the mother of good food, and included a chapter on the vital importance of soil in his magnificent work, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.
How the Soil is Lost
Growing and harvesting certain crops depletes the soil of nutrients. Farming the same soil year after year could lead to erosion. The traditional solution was to rotate fields, to let the land rest and renew, or plant certain crops that would restore nutrients to the soil. Natural fertilizers like animal manure were also used. These solutions worked, but part of the land could not be used for food crops while it rested. Science supposedly “solved” this problem by using artificial fertilizers. These fertilizers enabled crops to grow in depleted soil. The same land could be used for crop after crop, without rest. But these fertilizers only provided some minerals and nutrients, not all of them. In fact, some of these fertilizers interfered with the ability of the plants to absorb nutrients. The plants that grew from the depleted soil were weak and far less able to resist pests, so artificial pesticides were introduced. Pesticides are poisons that kill plants and insects. The introduction of these poisonous artificial chemicals into the soil changed it, having a dramatic effect on the life in the soil, and killing much of that life. Soil is also damaged and changed by artificial chemicals created by industry, which are not part of the natural cycle.
Soil is also damaged and contaminated by the huge amounts of manure and liquid created by CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). The miserable animals in CAFOs are crammed together in a small space and not allowed to graze. They are fed grains and other species-inappropriate feeds. This cruel and unnatural practice creates huge lagoons of manure and urine that greatly exceed the ability of the land to absorb them.
The result of this artificial tampering with the soil was less nutrients. Plants cannot have nutrients that are not in the soil. Food animals cannot have nutrients that are not in the plants. People cannot get nutrients that are not in the plants and animal foods we eat. Our bodies cannot function properly without all the nutrients we have evolved to need.
Artificial agriculture has caused a huge loss of useable soil, a serious loss that is continuing. And the soil that remains has far less nutrients. Even in the 1940s, studies showed that fruits and vegetables had far less vitamins and minerals than vegetables grown in the 1920s. The situation is much worse today. For example, researchers have tested commercial oranges that contained hardly any vitamin C.
How Nature Makes Good Soil
We can restore the health of the soil by following nature’s laws. The Great Plains of the United States were some of the richest land ever known on earth. Before the plains were fenced and farmed, more than 60 million bison roamed the plains. The bison traveled in tightly packed herds, so they could defend each other against predators. The herd would travel into an area, eating all the grass, and breaking up the earth with their hooves and concentrated numbers, using their hooves to expose more grass. As they ate the grass, seeds would fall off and get trampled into the earth by the hooves of the massed bison. They would deposit their manure on the soil, returning the nutrients to it.
In effect, the bison actually farmed the land. They harvested the grass by eating it. They plowed the land by breaking it up with their hooves. They planted the new grass by trampling the seeds into the earth. They fertilized the land with their manure.
Then they would move on, leaving the land to rest and grow. By the time the herd returned, they would be greeted with a new crop of rich green grass, and the cycle would begin again.
All of the great grasslands in the world were created in this manner, with different types of animals and herd sizes.
But the blueprint remained the same—the animals were concentrated into tight herds, the herd grazed in a concentrated manner, then moved on, allowing the land to rest, recover, and regrow.
Many grassfed ranchers follow these methods, concentrating their herds, doing intensive grazing, then moving the herds so the land can recover. Some of these ranchers add additional natural nutrients to their soil as well. (See Grassfed Farmer Renews the Land.) Every time I buy grassfed meat, I am supporting these ranchers who are restoring the soil with their herds. Every time I eat the meat and fat from animals raised on rich grass, I am blessed by receiving a full natural range of nutrients, giving my body exactly what it needs to function properly.
These methods have been adapted and used to literally change millions of acres of desert into grassland. Even long-dead streams have come back.
We can restore our good soil to the earth, by following nature’s laws.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Real Food, Wise and Robust Old Age
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat
photo credit: conner395. Inverness Castle in the Scottish Highlands, home of a healthy people.
Old people in modern times are considered weak, foolish, and helpless, unable to survive without care. Most people expect to be weak and helpless when they get old, and to end their lives in a “rest home.” We often read in the news media that young workers will have the burden of taking care of an aging population.
Yet this is a new and horrible way of aging. Through most of history, old age was associated with wisdom, strength, and leadership. Most older people who ate a traditional diet not only took care of themselves, but led their communities, taught the young, and were the repository of knowledge and leadership for their peoples.
What is the difference? Why did old age change from a time of wisdom and leadership to a time of failing minds, deteriorating bodies, and chronic illness?
What we do know is that people eating the healthy traditional diets of their ancestors, with little or no medical care, remained wise and strong into their nineties.
We also know that modern people eating the Standard American Diet (SAD) become helpless in their sixties and seventies and even younger, unable to care for themselves, needing all kinds of expensive medical care and procedures just to keep breathing.
In other words, real food is the key to a wise and healthy old age.
Traditional Old Age
Throughout most of history, old age was associated with strength and wisdom.
Age was considered a prerequisite for leadership, and younger leaders always had older advisors. Every village, from England to Africa to the Americas to Russia to India to China, and almost everywhere else, depended on a council of elders, who would make decisions for the whole village, based on their experience and knowledge. It was accepted that these old people were the only ones who had the knowledge and experience to make important decisions. The knowledge of childbirth, cooking, what was safe to eat, and healing was usually taught and administered by the older women, who were universally respected.
On a national level, many traditional societies had councils of elders who would make decisions for the whole nation or tribe.
It should be understood that old people eating traditional diets were not only much wiser, but much healthier physically. History has thousands of examples of people who were “old” but showed great physical prowess. A few examples:
Gebhard Von Blucher
He was a nobleman, growing up on the finest food his culture could provide, eating huge amounts of wild game and grassfed meat.
He commanded the Prussian Army at the battles of Ligny and Waterloo, in 1815. Blucher was 73 at the time. During the battle of Ligny, Blucher led a cavalry charge against the French. His horse was shot, throwing Blucher to the ground. The horse then fell on Blucher, pinning him to the ground. The opposing cavalry forces charged several times over the area, back and forth, which resulted in Blucher being repeatedly trampled by horses, sustaining many wounds from their hoofs. After the battle, the horse was pulled off Blucher. Blucher poured brandy on his many wounds and drank some, and recovered in a few hours. He reorganized his defeated army and led them to Waterloo, a couple days later, where the sudden appearance of his army on the French flank helped the Allies win the battle.
Malcolm Macpherson
He was a Highlander, growing up on a traditional diet that had not changed for thousands of years. At age 57, he took part in the rebellion of Bonnie Prince Charlie, and fought in the battle of Culloden in 1745, wielding a heavy broadsword. Macpherson blamed the French for the Highland defeat. When Britain went to war against France some years later, Macpherson joined a Highland regiment at age 70. He fought the French in North America, using his heavy broadsword so effectively in hand-to-hand combat that he was taken to England to meet the king.
It should be understood that the above examples of robust old people were not unusual, and old people were expected to carry their weight and take part fully in all the activities of life, no matter how difficult.
Dr. Weston A. Price studied healthy peoples eating the diets of their ancestors. The elders of these people kept their teeth and their eyesight, leading active productive lives without illness or doctors. They did not live in fear of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease—these illnesses did not exist in their societies.
In fact, studies of the healthy peoples eating traditional diets have repeatedly found that most people remain healthy and productive into their nineties or even longer. They will usually slow down at some point, where they become consistently less active for a period of several months, then die in their sleep.
These healthy peoples ate plenty of fat from grassfed animals and wild game, fatty meats, seafood, organ meats, butter, all kinds of animal fat, organic fruits and vegetables, and did not touch modern processed foods.
Modern Old Age
Old age has become a time of sickness and horror for many people eating a modern diet. Most old people are on a number of prescription drugs, and eat a diet of refined foods that does not support the functions of their bodies. Most of them are impaired in their ability to do most things and many are completely unable to care for themselves. There is no wisdom in many of these people—many of them cannot remember what they said one minute ago.
Many cannot walk unaided, and have bones so brittle they break easily. Many have had one or more of their hips and or knees removed and replaced with an artificial construct. Many are emaciated, suffering from severe malnutrition, which makes all their symptoms worse.
Many live each day in a mental fog, and do nothing useful with their time. Many have actually shrunk in size, as their bones deteriorate and collapse. Many have lost all their teeth, and rely on dentures. Many start to die as their organs stop working, suffering from problems with their hearts, livers, kidneys, digestive systems, and just about everything else.
Every function of our bodies requires proper nutrition in order to work effectively. When our bodies are starved of the vital nutrients we need, our bodies deteriorate. The longer we are starved, the faster and more serious the deterioration.
We are told that this deterioration is the inevitable result of old age. However, it appears to be a result of decades of malnutrition on the nutrient-poor modern diet of dead, refined foods.
History and the great research of Dr. Price have shown us that a diet of real, traditional food can save us from this horror. The Dietary Guidelines of the Weston A. Price Foundation are a great place to start.
Related Posts
Eat Fat, Live Long—the Real Food of Okinawa
Call It Medical, Not Mediterreanean
This post is part of Real Food Wednesday, Fight Back Friday and Monday Mania blog carnivals.