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.
Eating Healthy Is a Mental Disorder? Nonsense!
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
photo credit: cliff1066™  Is it a “mental disorder” to make a pleasant trip to a Farmers’ Market to buy healthy organic produce?
The real food movement is a real problem for the food industry and the medical industry. More and more people are refusing to eat foods containing artificial ingredients. More and more people are refusing to let doctors tell them how to eat. More and more people are avoiding foods containing toxins, chemicals, and preservatives. More and more people are thinking for themselves. Can’t have that. People should do as they are told, by those who know better. So the powers that be are turning to a tried and true method of controlling the masses.
The methods used to keep people ignorant and compliant are many, and the tyrants and exploiters who live off the fear and suffering of others have used a huge variety. One of the most despicable methods is to label people who dare to disagree with conventional belief as crazy. Nowadays, the term of choice is “disorder,†which can be used to condemn any dissenting opinion and dismiss those who hold it as having a mental illness. That way, the truth of the dissenting opinion is never addressed, and the people who have it are condemned, made fun of, often institutionalized, and sometimes killed. Most people become afraid to even consider the dissenting opinion, for fear they will be labeled as mentally ill. A very effective way of killing free thought and preserving the status quo.
The latest use of this freedom killing method is the creation of a “mental illness†called “Healthy Eating Disorder,†which is usually called by the scientific-sounding name they picked for it, Orthorexia. Rhymes with Anorexia, which helps invoke the fear of a known disease. If it sounds like a mental disease, it must be a mental disease, right? If you avoid foods that contain chemicals, preservatives, GMOs, or any toxins, you are mentally ill with this so-called disorder. I kid you not. Psychiatrists have actually been quoted saying that this is a “serious mental disorder,†which can lead to “malnutrition,†social isolation, obsessive behavior, and many other horrible consequences, including death.
In other words, if you try to avoid eating toxins, if you try to only eat the healthy, unmodified foods of our ancestors—you are mentally ill and should be treated with psychotropic drugs. I suppose the only way you can avoid being labeled mentally ill is to eat the worthless factory foods industry promotes without hesitation or complaint.
This is nonsense. But it can and will be used to control our behavior. Unless we reject this evil and cynical fiction for the nonsense it is.
Some Examples of How Accusations of Mental Illness Were Used To Maintain The Status Quo:
Most people have never heard of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss. Yet Dr. Semmelweiss has saved the lives of more women than anyone who has ever lived. During his time, and before, in Europe and the U.S., many women died from a horrible, painful disease. It was called childbirth fever. Fatality rates ranged from fifteen to eighty percent. A woman was at great risk of getting this horrible disease every time she gave birth. Many millions of women died from this illness.
The medical profession of the day could do nothing to cure childbirth fever, and treated it as a normal risk of giving birth.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss, a Hungarian obstetrician, began doing something remarkable. He began washing his hands before assisting in childbirth. Semmelweiss noticed that his patients did not get childbirth fever. He assisted a number of women, from the rich to the poor, and they did not get this horrible disease that was so common. Semmelweiss decided that all who assist with childbirth should thoroughly wash their hands. He vigorously advocated his theory, and was astounded and dismayed when most doctors refused to wash their hands, despite his findings. He wrote letters to newspapers, letters that offended the medical profession. The doctors denounced Semmelweiss as insane. Semmelweiss was lured into visiting a mental institution. When he realized that the real purpose of the visit was to commit him, he tried to leave. He was savagely beaten by the brutal thugs used to control the inmates, and committed. His wounds became infected, and he died within two weeks. An autopsy revealed severe internal injuries from the beating.
Yet Semmelweiss had managed to publicize his findings enough that more doctors began to experiment with them. Eventually it was realized that childbirth fever was caused by the filthy hands of doctors and some midwives. And it became standard practice to wash and clean the hands before assisting in childbirth. Childbirth fever almost completely disappeared.
The old Soviet Union had a problem. Many of its citizens were complaining about the harsh conditions and constant shortages, and were expressing their opinion that the system did not work. The government decided that, since Soviet Communism was the best governmental system on earth, anyone who questioned or criticized it must be mentally ill. Tens of thousands of Soviet citizens were drugged or sent to mental institutions for questioning the system. The very fact that they complained was taken as proof they were mentally ill and needed “treatment.†This so-called mental disorder disappeared when the Soviet Union was overthrown.
Both Dr. Semmelweiss and the Soviet citizens were perfectly sane. Yet they were labeled as mentally ill and forcibly committed and/or drugged. Their real crime was to find a better way of doing things that threatened the established powers of their societies.
Now Comes Orthorexia
When I first read an article treating Orthorexia as a serious mental disorder, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately, it was not.
The basic theory of this non-existent “disorder†is the idiotic claim that being concerned about the content and quality of your food is a mental disorder that requires treatment.
If you avoid foods containing toxins, pesticides, or particular ingredients such as soy, sugar, corn, or GMOs, you are considered mentally ill. That is nonsense! If a “disorder†claims that not wanting to eat poison is abnormal and crazy, then the disorder is nonsense. Most people in history, over the entire globe, were deeply concerned about the safety and quality of their food, and paid a lot of attention to it. It is only in modern times that people have blindly eaten whatever the food industry places before them. I consider it vital to consider the quality and content of my food, and my health has improved greatly as a result.
Some of the “symptoms†of this phony “disorder†are so ridiculous that I cannot understand how anyone can take them seriously. Here are some of the most idiotic:
Planning the Next Day’s Meals in Advance
Really? I plan the next day’s meals in advance all the time. In fact, I have a general idea of what will be eaten during the week, which enables me to know what foods to purchase. Is there anyone on the planet who sincerely believes that this is a sign of insanity?
Feelings of Happiness, Satisfaction, Esteem, or Spiritual Fulfillment from “Eating Healthyâ€
This is a problem? Eating real food does create feelings of happiness and satisfaction. What is wrong with that? Do I feel good about the fact that I carefully select and prepare the best real food I can get for myself and my family? You bet I do. Do I feel fulfilled when I eat a great meal of real food free of toxins and chemicals? Of course I do.
And I am certain that all of my many friends in the real food movement have the same experience, and most of humanity has had and cherished this experience throughout history. This is a “symptom†that everyone should be blessed with.
Noticeable Increase in the Use of Supplements, Herbal Remedies, and Probiotics
Well, this must be the ultimate proof of insanity. Anyone who does not use Big Pharma’s drugs is crazy. Anyone who finds a cheaper, safer way to health is crazy. Anyone who tries to make up for our nutrient-depleted soils by taking supplements is crazy. Anyone who uses probiotics instead of drugs is crazy. Certainly this has nothing to do with corporate profits. Actually, this “symptom†has everything to do with profit.
I could give further examples, but I have made my point.
Orthorexia is not a mental disorder. In fact, if the entire human race had the “symptoms†of this “disorder,†and insisted on clean food free of toxins and chemicals, we would all be much better off.
In closing, the very fact that the real food movement has a phony mental disorder being used to try to control us is an admission that we are being heard, and that there are more of us every day. We should not give any credibility or consent to this cynical attempt to control us and should always call it what it is—nonsense.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Fight Back Friday, 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.
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.
Why Taste Enhancers Should Be Avoided and How to Do It
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
The smell of good food cooking is the only taste enhancer needed.
What if the food you ate was spiked with a chemical that caused you to have hallucinations? A chemical that distorted what you saw to the extent that you could not trust your eyes, because the chemical was causing your brain to see things that were not there? A chemical that caused you to see things the manufacturer and seller wanted you to see?
Would you object to such a chemical? Would you want such a deceptive chemical banned from the food supply?
Almost every person would. After all, we need to be able to trust what we see with our own eyes, to get accurate information from our senses. Yet you almost certainly have ingested many chemicals designed to deceive and trick your senses. Except the sense they deceive is not your eyesight, but your taste.
These chemicals are known as taste enhancers. If they appear on a food label at all (and they often do not), they can be called artificial flavors, or a host of other names.
The purpose of these chemicals is to trick your mind into believing it is eating something that is not there. Since our sense of taste serves many important functions, these functions are also deceived by this false information, and cannot function accurately. These chemicals have one purpose, to get you to buy the product they are placed in.
The Importance of Taste
We have over ten thousand taste buds in our mouths and tongue. They are there for a reason. The reasons include these:
- To detect poison
- To detect food that is good to eat
- To detect spoiled food
- To detect the presence of nutrients in a particular food
- To signal the digestive system so it can properly prepare to digest the food that is coming
- To stimulate the production of and release of saliva with the right mix of enzymes to predigest the food as we chew it
- To regulate our appetite
- To let us know when we have had enough
There are many other functions, almost certainly including functions we have not yet discovered. An accurate sense of taste is vital to our knowing what and how much to eat. For most of human history, we could trust our sense of taste. It protected us from harm, and provided the best possible feedback on how much we should eat.
I consider it crucial to have accurate taste feedback at all times. If the natural taste of something is really bad, or even a bit off, our body is telling us not to eat it. If the natural taste of something is really good, our body is telling us that we need the nutrients in that food, and to keep eating it. If we have eaten enough of a particular food, the taste changes, and we know when we have had enough.
For example, the first bite of a perfectly cooked grassfed steak will make me want to eat more, as it tastes so good. But after I have swallowed the nutrients that I need, the steak no longer tastes as good. My body is letting me know that I have had enough. If I were to force myself to eat more, the taste would become worse and worse. This is nature’s way of letting us know when we need to eat more of something, and when we need to eat less. If you eat only real food, cooked with the traditions of our ancestors, your sense of taste should work properly to let you know what to eat and how much. Since every one of us is unique, this is much more useful, in my opinion, than “one size fits all” nutritional guidelines.
But if you eat food spiked with taste enhancing chemicals, it is a different story.
The Trouble with Taste Enhancers
The first widespread flavor enhancer was Monosodium Glutamate, also known as MSG, which was invented in Japan. During World War II, American soldiers eating captured Japanese rations were astonished by how good they tasted. This lead to the widespread use of MSG in the American food industry, and to the creation of many other flavor enhancers.
Taste enhancers work on a neurological level, which means that they deceive the senses and directly affect the brain. Some make food appear to taste much better than it actually does. Others fool your brain and body into thinking you are eating meat, even when you are not. Others convince your brain that you are experiencing a particular taste, but you are not. This gives false information to your body and brain, and your natural functions act according to this false information. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of chemical combinations that are used to enhance and create taste in processed foods, and in fast foods. They are created and modified by skilled chemists who are trying to create a particular taste or effect. Unfortunately, these chemists are very good at their jobs.
Why are taste enhancers used? To enhance profits. Processed foods and factory foods are designed for long shelf life. They often contain many ingredients whose natural taste is foul and revolting to humans. They are processed, often heavily, to remove these foul tastes, and often have very little flavor. Tasteless foods often contain fewer nutrients than tasty foods. If the flavor was not enhanced to be better, much better than it naturally is, very few people would eat these products, because they just would not taste good enough. While giving a false good taste to inferior processed foods is a major reason for the use of taste enhancers, it is not the only one.
Taste enhancers can get you to eat more and more of a particular food. They do this by sending false information to your brain that makes you believe that you want to eat more and more of the food they are added to. The problem is made even worse by the poor nutritional content of factory and packaged foods, which makes your body hungry for nutrients which are not there. This combination is one explanation why so many people will eat a whole bag of cookies, or pint of ice cream, or huge amounts of soft drinks, cereal, fast foods, and any number of other factory foods. Obviously, if people eat more and more of a product, profits are enhanced. Getting us to eat much more food than we actually need is a big key to the profits of the food industry. These chemicals can be so effective that they totally override the natural appetite control built into our sense of taste.
A third and related use is to get our brains to crave a particular product. If you crave a particular fast food item, or packaged food, what you really crave is the chemicals used to enhance its taste. I still have a craving for a particular fast food item. I have had that item only once in the last ten years, yet I still crave it. When I ate it, I wanted to eat more and more of it, no matter how much I had. I tried it a few months ago, just to see what would happen. I ordered a small amount, which I quickly wolfed down, much faster than I intended. I immediately wanted to eat more, and more. It took a lot of willpower to leave the place. When I researched the contents of that particular food, I found that it contained several chemical taste enhancers.
The biggest problem with taste enhancers is that they deceive our sense of taste, and reduces its ability to perform its natural functions. Which means that the ability of our sense of taste to prevent us from eating foods that we should not, and to regulate our appetite, is greatly diminished.
The Solution
It takes work, but there are great benefits to avoiding chemicals, eating real food, and helping your body function as it was intended to do. It has made a huge difference in my life, giving me much more harmony, joy, and health. And my sense of taste has improved steadily, greatly increasing my appreciation of the food I eat. And I eat much less than I used to, without effort.
The only way I have found to restore my sense of taste to its proper function is to avoid taste enhancers. This means avoiding all packaged foods, except certain organic items. Even then, I read every label and reject everything that has an ingredient with a scientific or chemical name, or includes the words “flavors,†or “spices.†There are some wonderful traditional fermented foods out there, but I will only buy from a company that I have checked out and trust. To the extent that I can, I cook everything from scratch. I do my best to obtain foods that have been raised without chemicals, and which are traditionally raised on good soil.
I use traditional cooking methods and ingredient combinations. I only eat grassfed meats, or in the case of pork or poultry, meats that are pastured or naturally raised. I generally avoid most restaurants, and I am very careful to know the food of the few restaurants I will eat in. I never eat fast food, except for that experiment I described above.
What if you do not know how to cook? I respectfully advise you to learn. I think cooking is one of the most important skills anyone can have, as it gives you the freedom and ability to eat and prepare food that will be wonderful for you and your loved ones. And, given that we are what we eat, what could be more important?
Is all of this a lot of trouble and work? You bet it is. But it is worth it. Convenience was and is the great temptation that convinced most of us to rely on packaged foods and factory foods. The work of obtaining good food and the work of preparing and cooking them allows my sense of taste to function properly. I eat much less, though I eat as much as I want. I feel content and renewed after every home-cooked meal. I enjoy my meals without any negative consequences. And eating this way has resulted in the best health of my life, by far, as my natural functions work as intended, without being deceived by chemicals.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Traditional Heat Is Best for Cooking Grassfed Meat
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Traditional cast iron casserole is perfect for slow cooking.
There are two questions I often get about cooking grassfed meat.
The first question is “How do you cook grassfed meat in a microwave?â€
The answer to that one is very simple, I don’t.
The second question is “How do you cook grassfed meat in a slow cooker?â€
The answer is the same, but for very different reasons.
Why do I not use these two modern cooking methods? The main reason is that our ancestors never used them. They used heating methods that created heat similar to that created by modern grills, and gas and electric stoves. Since my cooking is completely based on ancestral methods, you cannot get the same results with microwaves or slow cookers. But there are also other, important reasons.
The Problem with Microwaves
Microwave ovens are a relatively modern invention, never used before the twentieth century. Their main advantage is that they are easy to use, and give quick results. Many people find them very convenient and a huge timesaver. Senior housing and apartments often have no conventional ovens, just microwaves. But that convenience comes at a price. A price I am not willing to pay.
Microwave ovens cook by heating from the inside out, unlike every other method of cooking food known to humanity. The heat starts at the center and moves outward, and has the effect of damaging and changing the cells that are heated. That process creates compounds never before seen in nature, known as radiolytic compounds. The process actually breaks and damages the cells while creating the compounds. Which means that our bodies have to deal with substances that are new to nature and humanity.
There is much controversy over the safety and effects of microwaved food. The Soviet Union banned microwaved food and microwaves in 1976, for safety reasons. The American government, the food industry, and the manufacturers of microwaves insist that microwaved foods are safe. But the government states that microwaves should not be used for heating baby formula. As always, when you have this kind of controversy, it is very difficult to know what is true, and we all have to make our own decisions. But this area was carefully researched by a Swiss scientist named Hans Hertel.
Hertel conducted a carefully controlled study which found that the blood of people eating microwaved food was changed in a negative way, one that could lead to illness. A Swiss industry organization went to court, and got a gag order which prevented Hertel from disclosing or stating some of the results of his research, so certain business interests would not be harmed.
I do not know for sure which side of the controversy is right. But the very fact that this controversy exists is enough to convince me that I do not want to take the chance. Another factor is that the microwave effect of cooking food from the inside out is totally new to humanity, and I cannot believe it would work well with traditional food.
The Problem with Slow Cookers
Slow cookers were originally marketed with the idea that they would be an easy way to replace the iron pot that used to simmer for many hours on your Grandmother’s stove, producing all kinds of wonderful, flavorful meals. In addition, slow cookers could be turned on when you left for work, and you would come home to a wonderful dinner, ready in the slow cooker. Again, very convenient.
However, no slow cooker is the equivalent of the legendary iron pot that simmered for many hours on the stove. If you want to recreate the effect of that famous pot, you can put a cast iron or enameled cast iron pot in a very low oven for many hours, and you will get a very similar effect.
Slow cookers are never made of cast iron, and they have a ceramic or aluminum inner pot, in which the food is cooked. Cast iron retains heat and becomes hotter as the cooking continues which causes the liquid in the pot to slowly reduce, concentrating flavors and developing them. The materials used in slow cookers do not do this, which often leads to watery sauces and a pronounced lack of flavor. While many slow cooker users have found ways to make delicious meals in slow cookers, it is not a traditional way of cooking and never was. I get wonderful results using cast iron pots, as shown in Tender Grassfed Meat.
But there is another good reason why I never use slow cookers, and that is the controversy over their safety. Many slow cookers release lead or cadmium into the food. Both of these substances are harmful to humans. However, the manufacturers maintain that the amount of these substances released into the food is safe, because it is within the amounts allowed by the FDA, I have a conceptual problem with accepting that any amount of poison is safe, especially heavy metals like lead which can build up in the body. But the FDA says it is safe. Others have claimed that the lead or cadmium is sealed within the material of the pot, and never leaches into the food. Some slow cookers use an aluminum liner, but I do not want to eat anything that could have leached aluminum in it. Independent tests have claimed that lead and cadmium have leached into the food cooked in various slow cookers. Once again, it is very hard to know what is true, or who to believe. Given the controversy, I do not want to take the chance, especially when the real thing, cast iron pots, produces food that is traditional and tastes much better.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
Enjoy Grassfed Barbecue Without Fear
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Bison Porterhouse Steak, page 126, Tender Grassfed Barbecue.
Every barbecue season, the health “experts” tell us what not to eat to supposedly “lower the risk of cancer.” Usually the first item on their list can be predicted before the list comes out, “Do not eat red meat!”
I have a huge problem with this advice. These experts NEVER distinguish between factory red meat and grassfed red meat. Factory red meat is raised with the use of chemicals, fed unnatural feed sprayed with pesticides, and often bizarre feeds like chicken manure, donuts, and candy bars still in their wrappers. Grassfed meat is raised on green living grass, without the chemicals, and unnatural feed. The difference between these two types of meat is huge, as they are very different in their content and composition. The studies used by these experts for the basis of their opinion NEVER distinguish between factory meat and grassfed meat, treating them like the same substance. Since over ninety-eight percent of the red meat eaten in the U.S. is factory meat, those studies really only apply to factory meat, not grassfed.
Our ancestors barbecued red meat all the time. In fact, a huge portion of the meat enjoyed by humanity for thousands and thousands of years was cooked with fire. But until modern times, nearly all of this meat was grassfed.
Is Grassfed Meat Dangerous to Barbecue?
Every food has some element of risk, but I do not worry about barbecuing grassfed meat. As long as I use the traditional techniques described in my book, Tender Grassfed Barbecue, and as long as all the red meat I barbecue is grassfed or pastured—I feel fine.
The studies that demonize red meat and claim it increases cancer risk all have a huge flaw. Since all these studies are based on factory meat, they are not just testing meat. They are also testing the effect of the chemicals, growth hormones, and unnatural feed in the meat. Is the increased cancer risk found by these studies created by the meat, or by the chemical additives to the meat, or by the unnatural feed, or by the combination of some or all of these factors? No study has resolved this issue, and no study has addressed it. To the studies, red meat is all the same. A few recent studies have tried to differentiate between fresh red meat and processed meat. But even these studies do not distinguish between factory meat and grassfed meat.
The studies that have found that barbecuing red meat increases cancer risk also treat all meat the same. In addition, it appears that the meat was cooked by direct high heat, directly over the heat source, in all these studies. Most Americans use direct high heat when they barbecue.
So, in looking at these studies, we must ask—What causes the increased risk of cancer? Is it the meat? Or the chemical additives to the meat? Or the unnatural feed? Or the barbecuing methods? Or any combination of these?
There are no modern studies that address these questions directly. But there is an older study, one that I consider to be the most well researched, well reasoned, and valid nutritional study ever made—the research of Dr. Weston A. Price.
Dr. Price, a dentist and researcher, noticed that in each generation, his patients were sicker than their parents, and had worse teeth. Dr. Price suspected that the reason was nutritional, and spent many years traveling the world to study those peoples who were healthy and had great teeth. Dr. Price found that the peoples he studied, eating the diet of their ancestors, were free of the chronic diseases that plague modern cultures, and had perfect teeth. One of the diseases they did not have was cancer. And nearly all of these peoples barbecued grassfed meat. Some of them ate huge amounts of grassfed meat, often barbecued. So, based on Dr. Price’s research, eating barbecued grassfed and wild meat does not cause cancer.
In researching traditional barbecue methods, I learned that almost nobody barbecued meat directly over a very hot heat source, which is the most common barbecue method in the U.S., today. Our ancestors either cooked their food in front of, but never over a fire, or they placed their meat so high above a low fire that the meat would never get scorched or be touched by flames. This is completely consistent with modern studies that have found that substances believed to be carcinogenic are created by grilling meat directly over a hot heat source or by fat dripping directly over the heat source.
These risks can be avoided simply by barbecuing as our ancestors did, and never putting meat directly above a hot heat source. Interestingly enough, some of the experts also advise avoiding high heat when barbecuing. I trust the research of Dr. Price, which showed that people can eat large amounts of red, grassfed meat while remaining free of all cancer.
Should Meat Be Pre-Cooked Before Grilling?
Some of the experts advise that you partially cook all meats before barbecuing them. The theory is that the less time the meat is the barbecue, the safer it is. That conclusion is simply not supported by the studies which found that the substances believed to be carcinogenic were created by cooking over direct high heat. If you barbecue in a traditional manner, this problem is solved.
Our ancestors did not pre-cook meat and finish it on the barbecue. And they most certainly did not “nuke” the meat in a microwave, which some of the experts advise. In fact, I never use a microwave, not for any purpose. Microwaves heat food from the inside out, something that was never done in all the history of human cooking before. Some research has found that microwaving foods changes their very composition, in ways that have never occurred before. Not something that our ancestors ate and not something that I want to eat. And, to be honest, the very thought of “cooking” food with microwave radiation gives me the creeps. I would much rather stick with the kind of heat used by our ancestors.
Parboiling foods to be barbecued ruins the taste and texture, in my opinion. Properly barbecued grassfed meat is tender, with the savory wood smoke flavor that only real barbecue can give. The wood flavoring of barbecued meat takes time, and reducing this time by pre-cooking means less flavor.
Should Only Lean Meats Be Grilled?
The “safer barbecue” advice this year not only contains the traditional prohibition of all red meat, without differentiating between factory meat and grassfed meat, but also recommends what should be grilled. The selection does not excite me. They recommend skinless, boneless chicken breasts, and vegetables, and fish. All of these foods are low fat. It is true that some studies have found that fat dripping directly on the heat source is a factor in creating substances believed to be carcinogenic. But you do not need to eat low-fat meat to avoid this problem. All you have to do is not cook your food directly over the heat source.
The fat of grassfed animals is not only very different from the fat of factory animals—it adds enormous flavor, as well as vital nutrients. In fact, animal fat ranging from butter to suet to lard is a huge part of my barbecue cooking. Our ancestors used and cherished this natural fat, and used it extensively in every kind of cooking, including barbecue.
To me, barbecue means what it almost always has to our ancestors—meat. And I do not include boneless, skinless chicken breasts in my cooking, as they have been stripped of the very parts that give them the most flavor, namely, the skin and the bones. You can grill vegetables, if you like, but I have never done it. I would much rather barbecue grassfed meat.
Should Barbecued Meat Be Marinated?
Traditional peoples marinated the meat they barbecued, and/or basted it. The experts do advise marinating, and I agree with them—to a point. They emphasize marinades made almost entirely out of acidic ingredients such as wine, vinegar, or lemon juice, where my marinades, based on traditional combinations, always include a good amount of healthy fat. Too much acidic ingredients in a marinade will toughen grassfed meat. Our ancestors always used plenty of fat in their marinades and bastes—and so do I. This kind of marinade and/or baste not only may be beneficial, but makes the meat more tender and delicious.
I stopped barbecuing for awhile, being concerned with the studies connecting barbecue with the creation of carcinogens. I really missed it, so I started researching traditional barbecue. I was delighted to discover that the risk factors caused by the grilling process could be avoided by using traditional barbecue methods. I was also happy to discover that these methods worked perfectly with grassfed meats, being ideal for them. My research led to the discovery of many traditional and delicious marinades and flavor combinations. This research was the foundation of my cookbook, Tender Grassfed Barbecue, which is full of delicious recipes, based on tradition, and cooked with an easy method that avoids direct high heat.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Fight Back Friday, and Freaky Friday blog carnivals.
Grassfed Meat Should Be Savored, Not Gulped
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
A delighful dish to savor, Stir-Fried Beef with Mushrooms and Onions, Vietnamese Style, page 124, Tender Grassfed Meat.
I try to feed and nourish my family by providing the best nutrition I can. So how do we provide the best nutrition, for ourselves and our families?
Many of us try to buy the very best real food we can afford. And there is some wonderful real food out there, full of taste and nutrients. In particular, a nice cut of grassfed meat is a nutritional treasure. But buying great food is only part of the process.
I have spent years learning how to cook real food and grassfed meat in particular, perfecting many traditional and delicious ways to cook it. But knowing how to cook real food and grassfed meat is also only part of the process.
There is a third and vital part of the process of enjoying good nutrition, one that our ancestors knew and honored. One that has been largely forgotten and ignored in our modern world. One that takes time, but provides many benefits. One that helps our bodies absorb the nutrients in the food we eat, and aids digestion. After all, even the best food, perfectly cooked, will do us little good unless our bodies absorb and digest the nutrients in the food.
That is the old custom of savoring the food we eat, as we eat it.
What Is Savoring Food?
Savoring food can best be described as the practice of eating slowly, chewing the food thoroughly, taking small breaks from eating to talk and enjoy the companionship of the table, and giving full attention to how delicious the food tastes as we eat it. Doing this is one of the greatest pleasures in life, when you are eating good food.
Savoring food is the opposite of what so many people do at mealtimes, which is to give a chew or two, gulp down the food as fast as possible, and have a short, hurried meal, usually thinking about anything other than the food that is being eaten. Not only is the modern fast meal stressful, it has a very bad effect on our ability to absorb the nutrients in the food we eat, and can lead to a host of digestive difficulties and even disease.
The Benefits of Savoring Food
A wonderful benefit of savoring food is the great taste sensation. When we obey the laws of our own bodies, we are often rewarded by feelings of enjoyment and pleasure, which are great to experience. I contend that the full taste of even the most delicious food is not enjoyed unless the food is slowly and thoroughly chewed, with attention devoted to how good it tastes. It is then that you get the full enjoyment of the wonderful tastes of perfectly cooked grassfed meat, or other real food, which is a true pleasure. Many subtle nuances of taste and texture appear that are not noticed if you just gulp the food after a fast chew or two. I am convinced that the pleasure obtained from savoring wonderful food also helps our digestion and absorption, as the natural processes of our bodies always work better when we are happy and relaxed, and enjoying ourselves.
Another huge benefit of savoring food is to start the digestive process as we chew our food. The saliva in our mouth contains digestive enzymes which are meant to mix with the food and start the digestive process. Gulping food prevents this natural and vital process from taking place. Our digestive systems were not meant to break down big chunks of gulped food, and have a hard time doing so. Gulping down chunks of food can actually result in choking, and people have actually died from it. Slowly chewing each bite of food until it is broken down into small easily digested pieces presents the food to your digestive system as it was intended to receive it, which greatly increases the absorption of nutrients and aids digestion. The slow and thorough chewing of food also allows the enzymes in your saliva to mix with and predigest the food, which also helps the process. Some nutrients are absorbed directly through the mouth in this process. When I chew a bite of grassfed steak into tiny shreds, I get a wonderful feeling of contentment and satisfaction, as my body absorbs some of the nutrients. Taking small breaks from eating to talk also helps the digestive process, as it gives time for our bodies to process the incoming food at a natural pace.
There is a third major benefit, one that will appeal to many. When you slowly and thoroughly chew and swallow your food, you are getting more nutrients, which means you are satisfied with less food, and will naturally eat less. The very process of thorough chewing takes time, and this also seems to reduce the appetite. The opposite is also true, as when you gulp down barely chewed food, you do not get the nutrients that are normally absorbed in the mouth, and the difficulty of breaking down the chunks means your body takes much longer to get the nutrients, which makes you want to overeat. In other words, savoring your food can help you lose weight.
The fourth major benefit is one most people never think of, but is important. Our bodies are not designed to gulp big chunks like a snake, but to digest thoroughly chewed food. If you gulp food, your teeth and jaws are not being used the way nature intended, which weakens not only the muscles, but the bone structure of your teeth and jaws. Thoroughly chewing food gives your jaw and mouth muscles the exercise they need, and this exercise helps make the bones in this area stronger as well.
The Tradition of Savoring Food
When enough food was available, many of our ancestors would enjoy meals served in many courses, eaten slowly. Dinners like this could easily take hours. In fact, eating long, slow dinners has been an honored tradition in relatively modern times, especially in France, Italy, and Spain, and many other countries. Very often the first course served would be a soup, usually made with rich broth, which is known to aid the digestion of more solid foods. Many cultures would have soup available throughout the entire meal, for the same purpose. In Western cultures, people were expected to be relaxed and friendly at the dinner table, avoiding controversial subjects, because it was known that peace and relaxation aided the digestive process. The order in which various foods were served was based on tradition and experience, and a whole evening could be spent eating such a meal. Our ancestors might not have understood exactly how our organs and natural functions digest food, but they certainly understood what aided digestion.
But What Can We Do in Modern Times?
The sad truth is that most of us are so busy that we just do not feel that we have the time to cook, let alone eat a long meal with distinct courses. Many people quickly gulp down factory food for most of their meals, never realizing what they are missing and how this hurts their bodies. No wonder drugs to deal with stomach and digestive problems sell so well. Even if you have real food, gulping it down is a real disadvantage.
I would like to say that I have plenty of time for each meal, but I do not always feel that way. So I have reached a compromise, which is to purchase the best real food, especially grassfed meat, that I can afford, carefully prepare it, and serve a nice variety of food at once, including broth. I will take the time to thoroughly chew each piece of food, especially meat, until it has been reduced to shreds. I will swallow it slowly, no gulping allowed. I must confess that this does make meals take longer, but the rewards are immense. And I must confess that sometimes I do not follow my own rules and eat too fast, especially when time is short.
But the more I take the time to savor my food, the better I like it.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, Freaky Friday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnivals.
A Mighty Grassfed Champion’s Steak
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
A steak fit for champions barbecued by me.
As food becomes more and more industrialized, we are losing our food traditions. Take one of the most cherished cuts of beef in human history, meat cut from the chine portion. This meat was so valued in ancient times that it was reserved for the most important members of society, the champion warriors.
The Iliad, perhaps the oldest European literary work, tells of how mighty Achilles, the greatest champion of them all, barbecued meat from the chine for the kings and heroes of Ancient Greece, on the beach of Troy. Old Irish stories, passed down orally for hundreds or even thousands of years before being written down, tell of fights to the death between heroes for the right to claim the chine, known as the Champion’s Portion.
The chine portion was believed to give strength and courage, and build up the muscles a champion would need to swing his sword during a long battle, or to rebuild his body after it was bruised and wounded.
In more modern times, this honored cut was known as prime rib by the English, entrecote by the French, and Bife de Ancho by Latin Americans. Whatever it was called, it was an expensive, honored cut, favored and enjoyed by those who could afford it, or as a special, holiday treat by those of more modest means.
In our time, most people do not even know what it is. The chine portion of beef is usually cut completely from the bone and trimmed of all fat in a meat processing plant, then sold in a vacuum pack to supermarkets, where unskilled employees cut it into thin, boneless, fatless portions that no hero would ever have recognized. Most of this meat is a product of the feedlot, which gives it a taste that no hero would want.
The tradition is fading away, but I celebrate it from time to time, as a very special treat.
This magnificent steak was cut by skilled butcher Brian Chavaria.
If you have never seen a true steak cut from the chine, behold the raw meat in this photo. This is a classic steak from the chine, with all its components. It contains both the long rib bone and the short, flat chine bone at the top. Note the thick rim of glorious fat, the beautiful red color of the grassfed meat. See how thick it is. The chine bone gives a particular, incredible flavor to the meat, and the rib bone contributes another. The thickness of the steak allows it to cook long enough to fully develop its incredible natural flavor, especially when cooked in front of a real fire. The fat bastes the meat as it cooks, adding yet more flavor and tenderness. When the meat is done, the nourishing grassfed fat is crisp and delicious on its own, especially when served hot. Meat like this needs little in the way of spices, merely a cook who knows how to cook grassfed meat.
This magnificent steak was cooked in front of a fire, hot at first, then cooler, in the old way. The cooked chine steak is shown in the photo at the top of the page. Achilles and the Irish heroes would have recognized it by sight, and by the glorious meaty smell. I cannot show an aroma in a photo, but I can tell you that my mouth watered when the smell of the perfectly barbecued meat hit my nostrils, and I became very hungry indeed. The flavor of the fire provided the perfect enhancement to the tender red meat, and every bite was like tasting poetry. The unique flavor of this cut, available nowhere else, came through as well, and added to the enjoyment. A steak of this size will feed several people. This grassfed steak, dense with the nutrients of the bone and the fat cooking into the meat, is very satisfying and filling. The feeling of sheer satiation and contentment I felt after the meal was a joy to experience. And I did feel stronger and refreshed.
I understood why this cut was so prized for thousands of years.
For a steak like this, you need grassfed meat, from a healthy cow finished on rich green grass. But it is also important to have it cut properly, and only a butcher who knows the old art of his craft will know how to do this. This mighty, magnificent steak was cut by Brian Chavaria, a skilled butcher who knows his craft and appreciates the magic of great meat.
The chine steak is a tradition well worth preserving.
This post is part of Monday Mania, Fat Tuesday, Real Food Wednesday, and Fight Back Friday blog carnival.
« Previous Page — Next Page »