Wild animal fats vs wild plant fats?

[1 pot hunter]

How does say wild duck fat compare to say wild nut butter nutritionally. I’m under the impression cholestrol from animal fat is important in the creation off testosterone ,what will sustain you for longer in a hypothetical survival situation animal or plant fats?

 

[nigelp]

How does cholesterol from animal fat create testosterone - Is it not a function of the brain, hormones and in men about 95% from the testicles!
I don’t eat any animal fat and I’ve not noticed any decline in testosterone personally.

Duck fat contains no protein, vitamins or minerals but has around 900 calories per 100g

Peanut butter (pure) contains some fibre, protein, carbohydrate (starch and sugar) some vitamins and has around 600 per 100g.

Also consider the other forms of plant fat - sunflower oil and olive oil - these have been used to ‘store’ calories for at least 2000 years. Probably more versatile than the other two mentioned?

Neither on its own would sustain you longer term. I’d take the peanut butter over the duck fat - I could happily eat a jar of that and would mix it with wild honey!

Without a balanced diet you would end up with long term deficiencies and health problems.

 

[Robson Valley]

Find any really popular university Biochemistry text and learn the chapters on Lipids and Steroids. It suffices to say that plant and animal fats, triglycerides, vary in the degree of saturation, single vs double bonds in the fatty acid chains.

To some extent, the subunits are interchangeable, the basic cholesterol framework will have all sorts of side chains added to present as different control molecules. The fact is, if you don't get these things in your diet, you will synthesize any and all of them.

Human teeth and the entire digestive tract label us as omnivores. We cannot escape this. So much so that we cannot synthesize a variety of amino acids essential for protein structure and activity.

I professed biochemistry for 30+ years. I have run out of spit.

 

[TeeDee]

Find any really popular university Biochemistry text and learn the chapters on Lipids and Steroids. It suffices to say that plant and animal fats, triglycerides, vary in the degree of saturation, single vs double bonds in the fatty acid chains.

To some extent, the subunits are interchangeable, the basic cholesterol framework will have all sorts of side chains added to present as different control molecules. The fact is, if you don't get these things in your diet, you will synthesize any and all of them.

Human teeth and the entire digestive tract label us as omnivores. We cannot escape this. So much so that we cannot synthesize a variety of amino acids essential for protein structure and activity.

I professed biochemistry for 30+ years. I have run out of spit.

Seems to contradict each other?

"

Testes​

The two different hormones released by the pituitary gland serve different purposes on reaching the testes. FSH is responsible for sperm production, whilst LH specifically stimulates the production of testosterone. It does this by influencing a special type of cell called a Leydig cell. When Leydig cells are activated, they begin to convert cholesterol into testosterone.

Most cholesterol reaches the bloodstream through diet, particularly in foodstuffs such as bacon and eggs. Cholesterol can be produced by the testes if there is not enough in the bloodstream, but this is less effective and can inhibit the Leydig cells. It is cholesterol absorbed from the bloodstream that is most important for testosterone production.

There is a small amount of testosterone produced by the adrenal glands, only about 5%. The other 95% in men comes from the testes. In women, the majority of their (lower level of) testosterone comes from the ovaries, though again some is produced in the adrenal glands."

Key words - ' Less Effective ' -most of the substances the body can produce/synthesize in the short term to cope with a dietary restriction may not be the best option for longer term health,longevity and PERFORMANCE.

 

[Toddy]

You do know that there are millions of people who don't eat animals ? and thrive.
Millions of people whose societies have managed to exist quite happily for hundreds of years, thriving, increasing their population numbers.
I really doubt that 'performance' is an issue re animal fat vs plant fat.

It's making sure that you have a balance, a variety, and sufficient for your calorific output, that's important.

 

[Athos]

The question is based off a hypothetical survival situation. So the answer is easy…

Animal fats for the simple fact that any plant fat requires processing. The duck fat is readily available from the source. Kill it, cook it, eat it. No animal is 100% fat, so you will of course have protein, vitamins etc as well.

How much processing and work is required to produce the same calorific value of a plant based fat?

The simple fact is that in a survival scenario, animal fats offer the most bang for your buck. Plus there are other bonuses such as having bone, fur and sinew to use for other applications too. Not much you can do with a pile of empty nutshells.

 

[Toddy]

There's a huge bit missing in that though.

You have to catch the animal, first.

Rabbit starvation is a very real thing. In hunter gatherer societies /bands, it is the women and children who provide most of the calories and nutrition for the group while men, the hunters, provide feasting foods, skins, etc.,

It really needs both. Pretty much what @Robson Valley was saying, tbh. Humanity is omnivorous.

Hazelnut shells burn at high temperature. They're much used commercially to make fire starters for things like log burners.

In the past folks par roasted hazelnuts and that stopped them sprouting, and they were then capable of being gathered and stored for a very long time, in case of need later on.

 

[TLM]

Most nuts run a lot slower than rabbits so are easier to catch. There is the slight drawback that nut season is not very long but emergency rabbit season is about 12 months.

 

[Broch]

Setting aside the whole vegetarian/vegan diet discussion for the moment; in a long-term survival situation you would want to eat whatever you managed to get. It is unlikely you will get much vegetable fat if you're not in the right season but you certainly want to be eating vegetable matter. Assuming you don't want to do what most carnivore predators do and eat the part-digested stomach contents of herbivores, you will want to find a wide range of plant foods. On a pure meat diet your gut just doesn't work properly.

On a pure vegan diet you would struggle to get all the nutritional needs especially if you're on your own or in a small group. You would use up more calories than you're consuming. Current thinking is that Meso hunter-gatherers only had about 30% of their diet from large animal hunting; the rest came from small game, including fish, and foraging.

I am a firm believer in the value of evolution - a mixed diet is likely to give us an advantage or we wouldn't have evolved the way we are!

 

[Athos]

A rabbit can be snared, a fish can be caught on a night line or in a gill net. There are passive ways of hunting, but no passive ways of acquiring nuts.

Of course, the good standard is to acquire both. But the question was which is better in a survival situation and the numbers to me say that animal fat is the better choice. If you have a rifle at hand then shooting a pig is going to sustain you for far longer than contending with the local wildlife to find a few hundred grams of hazelnuts.

 

[slowworm]

What about grubs and insects? If I was in a survival situation then hunting a duck or rabbit could well be rather beyond my means whereas I know rotten timber is likely to be full of fatty, plump grubs.

I've noticed this year that the queen wasps, that get squashed when bringing in firewood, seem to be full of a fatty like substance and wondered if they would be edible if needs must.

 

[Broch]

What about grubs and insects? If I was in a survival situation then hunting a duck or rabbit could well be rather beyond my means whereas I know rotten timber is likely to be full of fatty, plump grubs.

I've noticed this year that the queen wasps, that get squashed when bringing in firewood, seem to be full of a fatty like substance and wondered if they would be edible if needs must.

It comes back to the calorific value again to be honest; if you're using more calories than you're gathering, you're better off just sitting down and waiting to die - you'll live marginally longer

 

[TeeDee]

You do know that there are millions of people who don't eat animals ? and thrive.
Millions of people whose societies have managed to exist quite happily for hundreds of years, thriving, increasing their population numbers.
I really doubt that 'performance' is an issue re animal fat vs plant fat.

It's making sure that you have a balance, a variety, and sufficient for your calorific output, that's important.

Seems to be a couple of different conversations going on here.
I respect anyones desire to put what ever they wish ( or not ) in their mouth but by doing so one is going to get less dietary diversity - that surely is immutable.

However that doesn't mean eating more of animal products over and beyond a certain point is healthy.

A balance point of cross dietary nutrients is probably what is optimal for human life.

So whilst I'm sure people do exist and as you say 'thrive' ( define thrive? ) on those diets I'm not convinced that they are optimised or maybe as optimal as they could be.

New Study Reveals 84% of Vegetarians Return to Meat

A new study of 11,000 former and current vegans and vegetarians over the age of 17 in the US has found that, while people are generally eating less meat, those who choose to give it up altogether struggle to keep up the habit.

www.sciencealert.com

My main intention was to point out that Cholesterol from animal sources is superior to cholesterol from plant sources - can plant source provide it? yes , but its not as bio available or usable ( efficient ) as Animal based sources.

And Cholesterol is a precursor for Testosterone production.

I think my view is akin to Brochs that the omnivore diet is most suited to Human welfare and thriving across all bases and empirical measurements.

 

[Toddy]

Jains, buddhists, many South Indians....all vegetarians, all happily thriving.....living good active healthy lives and breeding successfully. Most are however lacto vegetarians.

Robson Valley said it; the body uses what it gets.

It's fine to say 'kill something' and eat it, but the reality is that it's not that easy to catch something.
Passive snares ? fine, find your prey first, make your snare, sit hungry while you hope you've set it up in the right place.
I know folks who 'take for the pot'. They all, without exception, try to have stuff stored in the freezer because even those who do it often, often don't catch.

So, survival situation ? I'd say keep your options open and don't focus just on catching something.

 

[TeeDee]

Jains, buddhists, many South Indians....all vegetarians, all happily thriving.....living good active healthy lives and breeding successfully. Most are however lacto vegetarians.

I'd be happier to pay this point suitable credence if what backed it wasn't an enforceable religious doctrine following set ideals and structure.

Which is unfortunately a bit like a ( tofu ) Chicken and Egg situation , unable to separate the two.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Which is the best fat ? The one you've managed to find. If you have the choice, you're not in a survival situation.

 

[Karpatsky Forest]

I am no nutritionist, but I would assume that you would have to consume a lot more plant material to achieve the same level of fat, proteins etc as you would get from a much smaller amount of meat. However, hunting/trapping burns far more calories than foraging. If it was a survival situation, I'd be happy to get what I could find.

 

[Toddy]

I'd be happier to pay this point suitable credence if what backed it wasn't an enforceable religious doctrine following set ideals and structure.

Which is unfortunately a bit like a ( tofu ) Chicken and Egg situation , unable to separate the two.

Those were simple examples. Culture is not only religion based.
If you grow up in a culture that does not consider animals as food, then it doesn't occur to you to kill one to eat it.

Besides the point though; vegetarians, especially lacto vegetarians can live and thrive quite happily.

In a survival situation, you take what you can find. If you're on the top of a mountain, that might not be a lot, and if you think catching a deer, goat or grouse is easy, then you're carrying a rifle.
Not many of us do......

The adage about survival being 'get out asap', while bushcraft is 'chill out asap', kind of comes to mind.
Stuart's essay on the advantages of sitting down, making a brew, and having a think about what do about the situation is probably still very sound

 

[TeeDee]

I agree that hunting by itself can be calorie intensive activity but surely foraging has a calorie expenditure on par with trap setting? The benefit of setting a trap surely is that it multiples one time ( via ingenuity & investment of some energy & resource ) the ability to potentially provide a much bigger replicable yield of calories?

If foraging is moving and grazing on the go then there must be a calorie cost whilst one attempts to source ( may result in failure ) and then actually gather itself ( additional calorie expenditure ).

 

[nigelp]

Which is the best fat ? The one you've managed to find. If you have the choice, you're not in a survival situation.

Exactly. The OP was comparing two fat sources and then posed the question about animal fat and cholesterol/testosterone.

If I had the choice in his scenario I would choice the peanut butter.

I’m still not convinced the question of need for animal fat to make testosterone has been answered. The thread has drifted into the timeless and tedious debate about vegetarian versus meat diets etc.