Any Health Benefit in Eating Muscle Meat?

Question
I was curious to know if you eat any muscle-meat at all these days as I know you prefer the organ-meats?

Thanks,

Michel

Answer
For some reason, a number of RPDers often assume that I eat only organ-meats. This isn't correct(admittedly, my previous allexperts.com description was , up till recently, a bit vague and misleading, so that's understandable).

My general preference is to eat organ-meats to muscle-meats in a roughly 6:4 ratio. The "muscle-meats" I eat are primarily raw shellfish which I absolutely love the taste of and is very high in nutrients, with a little raw fowl(such as wild mallard duck/free-range turkey breast-fillet) and a little raw fish from time to time(eg:- swordfish/mackerel etc. etc.) - and I suppose my occasional raw-egg-intake counts as a muscle-meat?

My organ-meat intake consists of liver(to a small extent), kidney, tongue,occasional sweetbreads(ie pancreas/thymus),heart, suet and marrow - from a dozen different animals. I try to eat some marrow or suet with most of my meals, to get the extra fat.


I tend to avoid as much as possible  eating "red" raw  muscle-meats (ie from beef/buffalo/ etc.) This is because they're particularly tough to chew, rather nutrient-poor by comparison to the other foods I eat, not as easy to digest as the softer raw organ-meats, and not that great in taste. I am aware that a majority of Rawpaleodieters seem to use all sorts of blenders and food-processors in order to grind and mince up these kinds of  raw muscle-meats and make them more palatable - however, such machines were not available in the Palaeolithic, and there is conclusive evidence that organ-meats were preferred to muscle-meats, in those times:-

"Organ meats favored in preference to muscle meats in hunter-gatherer diets. Observations of modern hunter-gatherers have shown that muscle meats (the leanest part of the animal) are least preferred, sometimes even being thrown away in times of plenty, in preference to the fattier portions. Eaten first are the organs such as brains, eyeballs, tongue, kidneys, bone marrow (high in monounsaturated fat), and storage fat areas such as mesenteric (gut) fat. (Even this gut fat is much less saturated in composition, however, than the kind of marbled fat found in the muscle meat of modern feedlot animals.) There is no reason to believe earlier hunter-gatherers would have been any different in these preferences, since other species of animals who eat other animals for food also follow the same general order of consumption." taken from:-

http://tinyurl.com/3yhadw


Also, the current DHA hypothesis suggests  that our apemen ancestors gained human-level intelligence as a result of eating fatty DHA-rich organ-meats, particularly bone-marrow and brain(at least, according to Cordain).There is also an alternative theory that the large herds of wild animals present in the Palaeolithic were ultimately wiped out precisely because of this "wasteful" preference for organ-meats and hide-fat.

I'm in no doubt that  the tougher muscle-meats were also eaten in those times to some extent, but I suspect that Palaeolithic man may have practised various methods on them, such as drying, aging, or even cooking, in order to soften them up. (It's interesting to note that many modern hunter-gatherer tribes seem to cook all their muscle-meats but still eat some or all of the organ-meats raw).

Anyway, in a rather longwinded way, I guess what I'm trying to say is that muscle-meats do indeed have some health benefits, but some have far more health benefits than others.  

1. Prev:Aspartame
2. Next:Going off supplements?