Alam_dar Posted May 5, 2018 Author Share Posted May 5, 2018 37 minutes ago, MultiB48 said: how do they know that they are protein deficient ,or are you equating it with hunger? You are right. It seems to be hunger. http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html One of the main recent findings about hunting by chimpanzees was its seasonality (Stanford et al. 1994a). At Gombe, nearly 40 % of the kills of colobus monkeys occur in the dry season months of August and September. This is apparently a time of food shortage in the forest, since the chimpanzees' body weights do decline (Wrangham 1975). This is actually less strongly seasonal than in the Mahale Mountains, where 60% of kills occur in a 2 month period in the early wet season. Still there is some doubt regarding the nutrition. It is due to the reason while Chimp mother eats the placenta after the birth. In face almost all mammals seem to be eating the placenta, even if they are vegetarians (herbivores like Cow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 On 5/4/2018 at 5:38 AM, Alam_dar said: As far as I know, muscle meet is far inferior when compared to the organs. For example, the amino acid score of Beef muscle meet is only 92, where as of liver is 152. This is a huge difference. Similarly, when it comes to "complete source", then the score of Beef meet is only 38, while liver scores almost double with 64. There is only slight difference in proteins (Beef having 32.9 grams, while liver having 29.1 grams, while heart has 28.5 grams). Rest "all" the vitamins and minerals and trace elements are found much much more in the liver as compared to meet. There are some vitamins which are only present in the liver, while meat is empty of them. Please have a look here: Beef: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3504/2 Liver: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3469/2 Toxins: As far as I know, liver and organs neutralize the toxins, and not store them. Toxins are stored in fats of animals. As Weston A. Price Explains: One of the roles of the liver is to neutralize toxins (such as drugs, chemical agents and poisons); but the liver does not store toxins. Poisonous compounds that the body cannot neutralize and eliminate are likely to lodge in the fatty tissues and the nervous system. The liver is not a storage organ for toxins but it is a storage organ for many important nutrients (vitamins A, D, E, K, B12 and folic acid, and minerals such as copper and iron). These nutrients provide the body with some of the tools it needs to get rid of toxins. Sourcing Matters Of course, we should consume liver from healthy animals–cattle, lamb, buffalo, hogs, chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese. The best choice is liver from animals that spend their lives outdoors and on pasture. If such a premier food is not available, the next choice is organic chicken, beef and calves liver. If supermarket liver is your only option, the best choice is calves liver, as in the U.S. beef cattle do spend their first months on pasture. Beef liver is more problematical as beef cattle are finished in feed lots. Livers from conventionally raised chicken and hogs are not recommended. So, in other words: To call the liver a simple filter is incorrect. If we want to maintain the metaphor, it’s more like a chemical processing plant. The liver receives shipments, determines what they contain, and reacts accordingly. It converts protein to glucose, converts glucose to glycogen, manufactures triglycerides, among many other tasks, but its best-known responsibility is to render toxins inert and shuttle them out to be expelled – usually in the urine via the kidney. It doesn’t just hang on to toxins, as if the liver is somehow separate from the body and immune to contamination. The liver is part of the body! If your liver contains large amounts of toxins, so do you! I am a huge fan of superior quality food. The best meet/organs are from 100% grass fed animals. Not only they are healthy, but they are also taste great. Which parts Loin eats first: As far as I know, they go for the Belly first , and then the organs, leaving the muscles meat. http://santacruzpumas.org/2014/03/22/lion-kills-vs-coyote-kills/ …eaten starting at the ribs. Lions tend to eat the chest-area organs first (lungs, heart, liver). They chew a hole in the ribs to get to these tasty and most-nutritious morsels. …missing the stomach. Lions remove the stomach (called the rumen) when they first open the check cavity and bury is a few feet away from the body. This prevents stomach acids from spoiling the meat over the 3-5 days it will take the lion to finish eating the entire deer. Here one video of lioness eating the heart, although the muscles meat was also present, but she went for the heart. You quite literally googled the very first website with words like ' nurtition, meat vs organs'. Also, why the blatant falsification to support your ideology ? When it comes to meat, you are just as religious (ie, irational, twisting of facts and unobjective) as religious people are. Take the video for example. The lioness went for the heart ??? First, this is not a fresh kill. The Zebra is missig its entire right leg. Yet, its rib-cage is intact (you can see the rib bones poking out from the hole where its legs used to be. The entire gut is splayed out and not consumed. The lioness in the first several seconds, is chomping on the hind quarters - ie, the butt and the thighs of the zebra. Only after eating all the prime meat, is the lioness making a move to eat an organ - a heart- which is the only organ thats entirely a muscle. After eating the heart, she starts to eat the muscles around the ribs. So your video proves my point - that animals always go for prime meat first, before they eat any organ of their kills. Here you go, about the dangers of eating animal organs: https://goutandyou.com/gout-and-organ-meats/ https://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-the-liver-store-toxins/ The fact that liver accumulates heavy metals and often that is the cause of liver disease, is long well-established in the medical community. Ofcourse, the liver is not the storage place for toxins. Its the chemical processing plant of your body, which gets rid of toxins by modifying them and re-directing them to the kidneys (for filtration) or the fat cells (for storage). but it itself hangs on to heavy metals because heavy metals are neither fat-soluble, nor are they filtered by the kidneys. Eating brain, as established, increases the risk of prion disease (mad Cow, Kuru, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 4 hours ago, Muloghonto said: You quite literally googled the very first website with words like ' nurtition, meat vs organs'. Sir, I don't agree with this reasoning? Does googling and taking first website changes the fact and the muscle meat becomes more nutritional than the liver (as you claimed?) I have been using this scientific website about nutrition since ages. Not only this website, I have read tons of websites, and all are unanimous that muscle meat is no where in nutrition as compared to the liver. There is not a single website which ever claimed that muscle meat is more nutritious. That is why I wonder from where did you come out with this claim about the muscle meat. Quote Also, why the blatant falsification to support your ideology ? When it comes to meat, you are just as religious (ie, irational, twisting of facts and unobjective) as religious people are. Sir, let me complain that you are always so aggressive while having discussions. It is only a discussion and take it lightly. Just bring your proofs and arguments, and then let the others decide, without directly blaming others for being irrational and dishonest etc. Quote Take the video for example. The lioness went for the heart ??? First, this is not a fresh kill. The Zebra is missig its entire right leg. Yet, its rib-cage is intact (you can see the rib bones poking out from the hole where its legs used to be. The entire gut is splayed out and not consumed. The lioness in the first several seconds, is chomping on the hind quarters - ie, the butt and the thighs of the zebra. Only after eating all the prime meat, is the lioness making a move to eat an organ - a heart- which is the only organ thats entirely a muscle. After eating the heart, she starts to eat the muscles around the ribs. So your video proves my point - that animals always go for prime meat first, before they eat any organ of their kills. To mee too, it seems that it is not a fresh kill (as you suggested). There are now 2 possible situations. Either it was earlier killed by the lioness herself and she again became hungry and came to the kill, or it may be a kill by others and lioness could have claimed it for her for the first time. In both cases, lioness comes, and she has no blood stains on her mouth or nose. And the FIRST thing she did was to eat the heart. It is not entirely clear in the video, but it seems that liver had already been eaten. Therefore, I also gave you the link of the expert's opinion, who told exactly the eating pattern of lions. http://santacruzpumas.org/2014/03/22/lion-kills-vs-coyote-kills/ …eaten starting at the ribs. Lions tend to eat the chest-area organs first (lungs, heart, liver). They chew a hole in the ribs to get to these tasty and most-nutritious morsels. Regarding guts, then please see this video which shows without any doubts that guts were eaten first than any other muscle meat: And here you could see that the first thing eaten by lion is the testicle organ (even before the guts): Quote Here you go, about the dangers of eating animal organs: https://goutandyou.com/gout-and-organ-meats/ Gout is a disease. In this disease, not only organ meats are not good, but also the lentils are not good and as well as vegetables like spinach. Or even the normal muscle meat is also discouraged and preferred diet is only vegetables and bread. Therefore, it would not be correct to generalize organs or spinach or even the muscle meat as nutritionally bad for all people solely on the bases of gout. Using this logic, the vegetarians win the argument. Quote https://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-the-liver-store-toxins/ The fact that liver accumulates heavy metals and often that is the cause of liver disease, is long well-established in the medical community. Ofcourse, the liver is not the storage place for toxins. Its the chemical processing plant of your body, which gets rid of toxins by modifying them and re-directing them to the kidneys (for filtration) or the fat cells (for storage). but it itself hangs on to heavy metals because heavy metals are neither fat-soluble, nor are they filtered by the kidneys. I am afraid it is not true. If an animal is kept in worse conditions and poor diet is given, then the heavy metals are not only found in the liver, but also in the muscle meat too. This fact was made clear in the link that you provided yourself. https://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-the-liver-store-toxins/ The liver can definitely accumulate heavy metals, but it is not alone in that, nor does it always particularly excel. A 2004 study (PDF) of liver, kidney, and lean meat from cattle, sheep, and chickens randomly selected from ranches in Lahore, Pakistan, found that all three tissues accumulated significant amounts of certain metals ... If you avoid liver because of toxins, you should probably avoid the rest of the animal, too ... Livers from organic, pasture-raised animals are obviously going to be tastier (almost sweet, in my experience), more nutritious, and cleaner This article is making clear that heavy metals in liver/muscle meat is a result of poor conditions and poor diet. Free range cattle, who are grazing on lands free of heavy metals, don't have this problem. Quote Eating brain, as established, increases the risk of prion disease (mad Cow, Kuru, etc). Again I don't agree to blame the organ brain for the wrong feeding of cows by people. Mad cow disease is caused when people don't feed the cows their natural feeding (i.e. 100% grass), but feed them animal bones and proteins. And also it would not be fair to relate cow brains to the Kuru disease. Kuru is not related to the cow brains, but it was related to human cannibalism in people of New Guinea. For sure brain is also more nutritional than the muscle meat, both in case of completeness of proteins and also in nutritional balance. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4654/2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Sir, I don't agree with this reasoning? Does googling and taking first website changes the fact and the muscle meat becomes more nutritional than the liver (as you claimed?) 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: I have been using this scientific website about nutrition since ages. Not only this website, I have read tons of websites, and all are unanimous that muscle meat is no where in nutrition as compared to the liver. Except the website you posted, is not scientific. Random websites do not qualify as scientific, sorry. 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: There is not a single website which ever claimed that muscle meat is more nutritious. That is why I wonder from where did you come out with this claim about the muscle meat. Nutrition is NOT just about nutrients. its the WHOLE package of nutrients + toxins + microbial threat. In the WHOLE package, muscles win over organs (except heart,which is a muscle itself). 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Sir, let me complain that you are always so aggressive while having discussions. It is only a discussion and take it lightly. Just bring your proofs and arguments, and then let the others decide, without directly blaming others for being irrational and dishonest etc. To mee too, it seems that it is not a fresh kill (as you suggested). There are now 2 possible situations. Either it was earlier killed by the lioness herself and she again became hungry and came to the kill, or it may be a kill by others and lioness could have claimed it for her for the first time. In both cases, lioness comes, and she has no blood stains on her mouth or nose. And the FIRST thing she did was to eat the heart. It is not entirely clear in the video, but it seems that liver had already been eaten. What is entirely clear from the video, is that whoever killed it first, ate the front leg and didn't touch the organs. The lioness doesn't eat the heart first, she chomps on the hind-legs first. 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: I am afraid it is not true. If an animal is kept in worse conditions and poor diet is given, then the heavy metals are not only found in the liver, but also in the muscle meat too. This fact was made clear in the link that you provided yourself. heavy metal accumulation has NOTHING to do with poor or good diet. Heavy metals enter your body mostly through water. You made the false argument before, that if cattle are grass fed and not grain-fed, the microbial load in raw meat goes down and they are no longer the reservoirs of contagion. Which i already proved to be completely wrong. 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: https://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-the-liver-store-toxins/ The liver can definitely accumulate heavy metals, but it is not alone in that, nor does it always particularly excel. A 2004 study (PDF) of liver, kidney, and lean meat from cattle, sheep, and chickens randomly selected from ranches in Lahore, Pakistan, found that all three tissues accumulated significant amounts of certain metals ... If you avoid liver because of toxins, you should probably avoid the rest of the animal, too ... Livers from organic, pasture-raised animals are obviously going to be tastier (almost sweet, in my experience), more nutritious, and cleaner This article is making clear that heavy metals in liver/muscle meat is a result of poor conditions and poor diet. Free range cattle, who are grazing on lands free of heavy metals, don't have this problem. False. Nowhere does it say that heavy metal accumulation is due to poor diet. It says the quality of the liver itself will be better if the diet is better- not that it will have less heavy metals in them. As i said, we accumulate heavy metals through water mostly. 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Again I don't agree to blame the organ brain for the wrong feeding of cows by people. Mad cow disease is caused when people don't feed the cows their natural feeding (i.e. 100% grass), but feed them animal bones and proteins. Doesn't matter. What matters is mad cow disease is spread through specific consumption of brain and spinal matter. Its called prion disease. Affects other creatures too. This makes consumption of brain and spinal matter dangerous. Simple as that. 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: And also it would not be fair to relate cow brains to the Kuru disease. Kuru is not related to the cow brains, but it was related to human cannibalism in people of New Guinea. The method of transmission is the same - via consumption of contaminated brain and spinal matter. Ergo, brain and spinal matter are less safe to eat than meat. 9 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: For sure brain is also more nutritional than the muscle meat, both in case of completeness of proteins and also in nutritional balance. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4654/2 Doesn't change the fact that it is far more dangerous to eat. Your argument is like saying you'd rather eat a very very nutritional salad that has ebola virus on it ( great nutritional value with higher risks, just like organ meat) than a McDonald's burger that is low in nutrition but safer to consume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts