Elk hunt details

Robb Wolf was kind enough to give me some more details of his atlatl elk kill in I, Caveman.

I've added the following to the original review:

Robb tells me this hunt took place at a 16,000 acre private ranch, which if managed for trophy hunting is large enough to have animals that behave similar to truly wild ones. Atlatls are not legal to take big game in Colorado, although several other states do allow them during primitive weapons seasons. So no game laws were violated in this July hunt with primitive weapons, as the animals were not part of the common weal.

The animal shot was the one aimed at. It appeared  (to me) that it was quartering away properly, but the elk may have turned its neck toward the shooter at impact. The chest was the aiming point, the dart hitting high and anterior but still providing a mortal wound. The stone point cut the cerebral vessels and embedded in the body of the 3rd or 4th vertebra. The elk was tracked for about 30 minutes and went down from blood loss, where it was dispatched with more darts to the chest.

This was an impressive shot. The distance looked to be in excess of 30 yards (Robb estimates 35-40), which would be really pushing it with a longbow, or even a modern, flat-shooting compound device (not really a bow at all in my opinion - these and those abominable crossbows are more like powderless rifles in terms of the skill level required and practical range when compared to the longbow or atlatl).

Robb made his own atlatl and darts and practiced for hours a day weeks before the show. This speaks highly of the producers that they encouraged this skill development to ensure hunting efficacy.

I, Caveman

Can you believe the c-word is even appearing on my blog?

I watched the two hour reality show "I, caveman" on the discovery channel tonight. This features our good friend Robb Wolf, who apparantly participated some time early this summer in the high country of Colorado.

I had trepidations about this.

This show had a few strikes against it in the expectations department.

1) Morgan Spurlock. I had an image of him as the smug populist who proved in the movie "Supersize Me" that eating until you vomit might actually make you fat and unhealthy. Maybe for his next movie he can drink water until he gets cerebral edema? That would provide some teaching moments, and maybe people would be more cautious about all that water we have available... But I also just suffered through his latest movie on netflix which was about how product placement in cinema is ubiquitous and advertising is really, really common. So I thought maybe I had had enough of Spurlock.

2) The caveman moniker, last seen in association with the image of a retired economics professor towing his land rover up a suburban driveway, has not been a good predictor of sound and edifying journalism.

3) The trailer, which has our friend Robb clothed in animal skins, looked, I am sorry, so absurd as to be startling, and I was really, really worried this would be a cringe-making spectacle.

But it was worth watching.

I usually hate reality shows.

But this was one of the more reasonable pieces of reality fiction I have seen on television.

Among the cast:

Morgan Spurlock, who for this show is under someone else's direction, is surprisingly excellent. An honest and good-humored participant and with the voice of an objective narrator.

Manu, a handsome Maori woman (Reminds me of Rena Owen from the films Once Were Warriors) who starts out with brain fog from hypothermia but later proves to be both resourceful (improvising a water filter with charcoal and animal skins) and tough.

Robert, who is telegenic enough to command the most screen time in the edit and starts with the heart of a trophy hunter, but like so many trophy hunters I have seen, does not have the quiet determination and guts that is found in the best meat hunters and ecohunters*, and that ultimately brings home the bacon. 

Robb Wolf, who appears to be one of the few modern humans in to have killed a Wapiti (elk) with a primitive atlatl. On film.

It is possible that you have to be a primitive weapons hunter like I am to really appreciate this, but seeing Robb kill an elk with an atlatl is pretty impressive.

An Atlatl is a force multiplying weapon that hurls a long arrow-like projectile called a dart. It arose independently as a technology in at least a few disparate places around the world, at least 30,000 ybp and about 20,000 y before the bow. The principle is similar, but rather than a progressive linear acceleration to the arrow, the much longer dart is accelerated by a lever. The bow can be seen as an evolution of the atlatl, which in turn was a quantum leap from the spear, whether thrown or thrust. Not only could animals or enemies be engaged within realistic stalking distance - 20-40 yards - but the substitution of leverage and skill for short range brute force, allowing penetration of vital organs accurately at a distance, may have allowed more individuals, including women and children, to participate effectively in hunting.

Now, I will tell you that unless you have a scoped rifle and a rest, a shot to the neck is not a high probability hit. One has to hit the spinal cord or trachea or the cerebral vessels to reliably kill or even bring down an animal. A going away chest shot, with the projectile slipping between ribs which angle like the wood shingles on a tudor home is ideal. Penetration of at least one side of the chest, creating penumothorax/hemothorax on that side is preferred and more reliable. Penetration of both lungs is perfection. A nice hole in the aorta or heart is merely a bonus.  

Robb tells me this hunt took place at a 16,000 acre private ranch, which if managed for trophy hunting is large enough to have animals that behave similar to truly wild ones. Atlatls are not legal to take big game in Colorado, although several other states do allow them during primitive weapons seasons. So no game laws were violated in this July hunt with primitive weapons, as the animals were not part of the common weal.

The animal shot was the one aimed at. It appeared  (to me) that it was quartering away properly, but the elk may have turned its neck toward the shooter at impact. The chest was the aiming point, the dart hitting high and anterior but still providing a mortal wound. The stone point cut the cerebral vessels and embedded in the body of the 3rd or 4th vertebra. The elk was tracked for about 30 minutes and went down from blood loss, where it was dispatched with more darts to the chest.

This was an impressive shot. The distance looked to be in excess of 30 yards (Robb estimates 35-40), which would be really pushing it with a longbow, or even a modern, flat-shooting compound device (not really a bow at all in my opinion - these and those abominable crossbows are more like powderless rifles in terms of the skill level required and practical range when compared to the longbow or atlatl).

Robb made his own atlatl and darts and practiced for hours a day weeks before the show. This speaks highly of the producers that they encouraged this skill development to ensure hunting efficacy.

I know I will never forget the first deer I killed with my longbow 10 years ago, and I doubt that you could really know the emotions Robb experienced after ending a several-day fast for his "tribe" by killing this animal so intimately and honestly.

Other features I enjoyed were the balance between throwing the tribe to the wolves and artificial assistance with instructions from Atlatl Bob.

And there is reasonable and sober commentary by men who appear to be real experts in biology and antropology, especially a biologist named Kuiper.

There is no succor for for veganism or even vegetarianism, or indeed any kind of trendy political correctness.

Yet there is also very little of the macho trophy hunting "whack 'em and stack 'em" posturing of the type seen on most of the outdoor shows originating in the southern US. Shows replete with mechanised transport that makes the staged "hunt" as challenging as bowling, and a nu-metal soundtrack more appropriate to first person shooter video games.

I even enjoyed the little meat-hunting ethical lesson given by Spurlock at the end, whose dogged coyote-and- roadrunner pursuit of a large muskrat reminds me of no one so much as myself at some points.

I, Caveman. Check it out.

Robb, thanks for the added details!

*For the origin of these categories of hunter and literate musings on hunting big game, see books by David Petersen. I also highly recommend the writings of Don Thomas and subscribing to the periodical Traditional Bowhunter.

Jimmy Moore inquires about "safe starches"

This morning I got an email from Jimmy Moore inquiring what I thought about Paul Jaminet’s ideas about safe starches as espoused on his blog and in his book The Pefect Health Diet. I am not sure if Jimmy has noted the updates I’ve made in the Archevore diet, or if he has seen where I have come down on the issue of the CIH ( the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity), as he would have to be scouring the nooks and crannies of blog comments all over the nutrition blogosphere ; )

I’ve not had time to write the magnum opus blog posts that the repuditation of the CIH really requires (and not much can be added to what Stephan has already written), so I thought this was a good opportunity to get the message outside of my own echo chamber by responding in detail to Jimmy’s inquiry. My response to him is pretty long, and I doubt if he will quote much of it, so I’ve reproduced the email response, with his inquiry broken into bits in italics and my responses afterward in roman.

Kurt, I've been getting a lot of questions this year from my "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blog readers about the concepts in Paul Jaminet's book "Perfect Health Diet."  He advocates for eating white potatoes and white rice as part of a low-carb eating plan.

I also have come to see most starchy plant organs as perfectly legitimate fuel sources. 

Low carb plans have helped people lose fat by reducing food reward from white flour and excess sugar and maybe linoleic acid. This is by accident as it happens that most of the "carbs" in our diet are coming in the form of manufactured and processed items that are simply not real food. Low carb does not work for most people via effects on blood sugar or insulin "locking away" fat. Insulin is necessary to store fat, but is not the main hormone regulating fat storage. That would be leptin.

My reading of the anthropology and ethnology literature, as well as my current understanding of biochemistry and metabolism, lead me to see the human metabolism as a multi-fuel stove, equally capable of burning either glucose or fatty acids at the cellular level depending on the organ, the task and the diet, and equally capable of depending on either animal fats or starches from plants as our dietary fuel source, depending on the biome (biological environment) we find ourselves born in or that we migrate to. 

We are a highly adaptable species. It is not plausible that carbohydrates as a class of macronutrient are toxic.

Diabetics need to avoid high carbohydrate intake the same way those with gall bladder disease need to avoid fat, but carbohydrates do not cause obesity or diabetes and fat consumption does not cause gall bladder disease (in fact low fat diets may contribute to gallstone formation via stasis) 

Here's a one-page explanation and illustration of Jaminet's program:http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?page_id=8

Several places in the book and on Jaminet's blog (http://perfecthealthdiet.com) he specifically warns against the danger of a very low-carb diet (defined as less than about 300-400 calories per day (~100 grams) from so-called "safe starches"--taro, plantains, yams, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, white rice and berries) because less than this leads to the risks, including:  1) "insufficient production of mucus in the digestive tract" leading to dysbiosis

I have not looked into that claim enough to comment in detail, but it seems plausible. 

 2) vitamin deficiencies (he particularly mentions Vitamin C and glutathione 

Yes I would agree with that. Whites and sweets are loaded with ascorbic acid.

on pages 253-254)In particular he emphasizes these calories need to come from "safe starches and berrries" and "don't count vegetables as as a carb source (because) they are a fiber (and therefore a fat) source" (page 45).

My list is white potatoes, sweet potatoes, white rice and bananas. If more exotic fare like plantains and taro is available to you, that is fine, too. Except for white rice, these are all whole food starch sources with good mineral and micronutrient content that have been eaten in good health for thousands of years in many environments by genetically diverse populations. Many of these plants have spread far from their biomes of origin and serve as staples for populations who have adopted them with success over just the past few thousand years.

These starchy plant organs or vegetables are like night and day compared to most cereal grains, particularly wheat. One can eat more than half of calories from these safe starches without the risk of disease from phytates and mineral deficiencies one would have from relying on grains.

White rice is kind of a special case. It lacks the nutrients of root vegetables and starchy fruits like plantain and banana, but is good in reasonable quantities as it is a very benign grain that is easy to digest and gluten free. 

I think consumption of quality animal products is the sine qua non of a healthy diet. 

Once you have that, then eating starchy plants is more important for nutrition than eating colorful leafy greens - the veggies that are high fiber and low starch. (Some green leafy vegetables are good sources of folate and along with some fruits are sources of flavonoids that may benefit you via hormesis.)

I view most non-starchy fruit with indifference. In reasonable quantities it is fine but it won't save your life either. I like citrus now and then myself, especially grapefruit. But better to rely on starchy vegetables for carbohydrate intake than fruit.

Primitive populations practicing horticulture or hunting and gathering do not eat a lot of big green salads with lots of variety, but they do eat healthy starchy plant organs with monotony on top of their foraged animal foods.

Eating a very low carb (VLC) diet for a period of time can be a good fat loss maneuver, acting via the effects of ketosis on appetite suppression. I also like to see people limit themselves to two or three meals a day with absolutely no snacking, and it may give benefits via hormesis for longer periods of fasting (24 hours or more) once in a while.

But a long term VLC ketogenic diet is not a good idea. It does not mimic the ancestral diet in general, even if some populations have tolerated it when they had to. There is no need for most people to do it to lose fat, as food reward effects are more powerful. I would advocate long term ketosis in those with neurodegenerative brains diseases like Alzheimer dementia and Parkinson disease, and a 10 day water fast followed by long term ketogenic diet is worth trying if you have cancer. 

But I would not recommend VLC ketosis as a long term way of life the way I would not recommend running a half marathon every day, or lifting weights to failure on a daily basis, or taking chemotherapy drugs when you don't have cancer. Ketosis probably stresses the body and works via hormesis. But the clean up and repair response cannot happen if there is no rest from it. 

A recent post he wrote for cancer patients revealed his recommendion of obtaining 400 to 600 glucose calories a day, mainly from these safe starches. He says it is important to avoid a glucose deficiency, since glycosylated proteins are the means of intercellular coordination, and defects in glycosylation are characteristic of the cancer phenotype.

My arguments are based more on ethnography and anthropology than some of Paul's theorizing, but I arrive at pretty much the same place that he does. I personally eat around 30% carbohydrate now and have not gained an ounce from when I ate 10-15% (and I have eaten as high as 40% for over a year also with zero fat gain) If anything I think even wider ranges of carbohydrate intake are healthy. 

One can probably eat well over 50% of calories from starchy plant organs as long as the animal foods you eat are of high quality and micronutrient content. 

Grass fed ruminants, pastured butter and eggs and wild caught cold water fish are the kernel of a healthy diet, but the fuel source can be larger than the kernel on a caloric basis if the kernel is high quality and consistent.

He notes, "You don’t want to aggravate this with a self-induced glucose deficiency." I'd like to write a blog post about this topic of "safe starches" to help my readers understand fact from fiction and will quote from your response.  THANK YOU! If you cannot assist me, then please let me know so I ask someone else to contribute.

I've given you plenty to quote from, Jimmy. Go for it!

Stress does not imply hormesis

OC writes in the comments:

I was just reading your post on hormesis and plant toxins.  Why would wheat (1 slice of bread once or twice per week) or an ocassional teaspoon of peanut butter not also cause hormesis.  Is it absolutely determined that these substances are unhealthy, or is this also theoretical?  I ask because my mom eats pretty healthy, but it's still difficult for her to give up her toast in the morning.

It's a non sequitur to assume that every stress or toxin must have or even might have a hormetic effect.

There is not likely any hormesis to be found with cerebral concussions, skin lacerations or lead oxide ingestion.

These won't kill you in limited amounts but they have no mechanisms where the body's response leaves you physiologically "better off" than before.

I am not saying that there is anything necessarily that harmful in a non-celiac eating a little bread, or anyone smoking a cigarette now and then, or not getting enough sleep once in a while, or anything else not wise done only once in a while. I am saying that if there is any damage associated with these behaviors, you can't automatically propose they are hormetic. You need evidence based on an actual mechanism to say they might be.

If your mom is at optimal weight and has no celiac disease or auto-immune fellow travelers of celiac, and one slice does not beget another (the main issue with all flour containing "foods") then, a slice of bread a day may be no big deal.

It's not the ten commandments, here folks, it's a framework. As long as you are honoring more in the observance than in the breach, you are on the right track.

Robb Wolf Podcast

I did this interview with the inimitable Robb Wolf - current Sachem of the paleo world and all-around good guy - just last friday.

Warnings may be in order.

I told Robb I was woefully under-read and had been out of the loop over the past few months, so he should be prepared for hearsay and rank speculation.

The interview was ex tempore and I had no knowledge of the questions beforehand. So there are a lot of verbal sidebars to make sure listeners know the context of some of my answers. These detours, when combined with some apparent digital gaps in the audio, make me sound as if I have ADD and aphasia at the same time, at least in some spots.

The interview is rather long at 1:45.

I've also updated my headshot. I hate it when people use ancient photos to represent themselves. There is a chiropractor in my town who often says hello at the grocery store, but I sometimes fail to recognize him as his photo in newspaper ads is from the Reagan administration.