Can you really starve to death while eating rabbit?

[mijopaalmc]

He was correct about vitamin C. It's preserved in the liver and other organ meats of some animals, especially if eaten raw.

I did not know that about vitamin C, but it is also true that vitamin A is highly concentrated in the the livers of some arctic mammals.

 

[kedo1981]

You have to ingest of fat to metabolize proteins and certain vitamins.
The plains Indians had the same problem with bison, the muscle had no fat in it and it was not very nutritious on it's own. The liver and tongue however are full of fat and are delicacies.
When you by bison burger at the store it's a hybrid with a cow.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I did not know that about vitamin C, but it is also true that vitamin A is highly concentrated in the the livers of some arctic mammals.

Yes, what you said about Vitamin A is also correct.

Article about Wikipedia article linked below citing Inuit sources of Vitamin C. Also contains some information and further links relevant to problems with lean meat diets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet

 

[aleCcowaN]

I have recently encountered the claim that if you have a diet with rabbit as your only real protein source you will eventually die of starvation.

Wikipedia says it isn't really about rabbit but about lean meat in general and that there really hasn't been much study into rabbit in particular. And the zombie survival website says it is a myth.


Thoughts?

Rabbit starvation, what probably caused the death of the guy in my avatar. He was in a cold climate with a diet extremely low in fats and high in proteins and the moment his body fat reserves bottomed out, he was done for. It looks like you can't live using 4 or 5000 Kcal a day coming most of all from proteins. 1000 grams of proteins are not an easy source of "just energy" that may be as "easy" to metabolize as carbohydrates and fats. Besides the 200 grams of urea to get rid of and other severe alterations, specially in a context of general malnutrition and low caloric intake when your fats are gone and your skeletal striated muscles are the only source of protein to keep the motor running.

When I learn this term "rabbit starvation" first time, I was a bit of an skeptic; later I accepted the notion a bit better but I can't help thinking is the kind of concept folks tell in a pre-scientific context: "When you are in the woods, in Winter, you can't live by just hunting rabbits, you would starve anyway .... Once a guy, McCandless was his name, went to Alaska to get the right answers to the wrong questions and got himself killed by eating rabbits, caribou, weeds and berries ... and not having a ******* decent map!"

 

[hodgy]

A rabbit chopped up (bone in) with carrots, parsnips and onions, a bit of salt and pepper - hmmm - my granddad used to make that from roadkill or shooting. Dipping fresh bread and butter into the stock was the nicest bit.

 

[casebro]

Humans cannot metabolize 625 grams of protein a day and survive for very long. That's crazy.

Thanks for the cite.

 

[casebro]

From Prf Yaf's cite in post #8: "However, given the lack of scientific data on the effects of high-protein diets, and the observed ability of the liver to compensate over a few days for a shift in protein intake, the US Food and Nutrition Board does not set a Tolerable Upper Limit nor upper Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range for protein.[2] Furthermore, medical sources such as UpToDate[3] do not include listings on this topic."

I guess few of the subsequent posters read it through.

Let me paraphrase: There doesn't seem to be an upper limit on the percentage of protein that humans can digest.

So, what rabbit starvation would come down to is whether our ill-prepared Prepper is a) eating the brains, liver, marrow, and kidneys to get the most calories per bunny, and b) how many calories he burns while running after Bugs with a stick.

 

[GlennB]

Let me paraphrase: There doesn't seem to be an upper limit on the percentage of protein that humans can digest.

I think you're confusing 'digest' with 'metabolise'. Nobody has suggested a limit to protein digestion.

Our bodies have an absolute requirement for glucose, and protein contains none. On a protein-only diet glucose can be synthesised (gluconeogenesis) from the amino acids derived from protein digestion, but the question is not only what are the limits to gluconeogenesis (if any) but whether there are other costs.

For example, gluconeogenesis liberates nitrogen (ureagenesis) which must be excreted , and there are definitely upper limits to the body's capacity for this.

I'm looking around for studies on this and will post what I find later on.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm looking around for studies on this and will post what I find later on.

This article makes an assessment of available evidence on the subject of high-dietary protein intake in adulthood. Although it looks like nobody was analysing protein intakes higher than 3 g.kg^-1.d^-1 -we're talking here three times that or more in a context of severe malnutrition-, there are some health issues reported related to concerns already discussed in this thread. I assume any study on the current subject that uses human subjects would be highly unethical, and evidence gathered from animals wouldn't be a match. We may resort to anecdotal evidence, but there's no much of it available in Internet. I'm afraid it's a case of "ask your friendly forensic pathologist".

 

[casebro]

I know that many people quote that "high protein diets are bad for kidneys", but that the actual study had to do with people who already are into kidney failure. The rest of us can handle by products of protein metabolizing just fine.

Ketosis is harmless to a healthy person, Don't confuse it with keto-acidosis.

Recent studies that compared various weight loss plans did not show any detriment to Low Carb diets.

There is no such thing as an "essential carbohydrate". Except maybe for a small amount of fructose for building membranes. We can live just fine without glucose. The liver only has to covert enough fat and protein to glucose to fuel our nerves, the rest of out bodies can run on fats. See the Low Carb idea.

 

[casebro]

This article makes an assessment of available evidence on the subject of high-dietary protein intake in adulthood. Although it looks like nobody was analysing protein intakes higher than 3 g.kg^-1.d^-1 -......

nuff said?

 

[Cuddles]

The liver only has to covert enough fat and protein to glucose to fuel our nerves, the rest of out bodies can run on fats. See the Low Carb idea.

And where exactly is the fat coming from in a diet composed mostly of lean meat? (Hint: what does the "lean" part of "lean meat" mean?)

 

[mijopaalmc]

The liver doesn't convert protein to glucose when protein and fact are the only carbon sources and the energy balance is neutral or negative. In the absence of glucose, both proteins and fats are converted to ketone bodies.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, the only question is what would be the primary cause of your demise:

• nitrogen imbalances (e.g., hyperammonemia, hyperureamia)
• carbon imbalances (e.g., ketosis, ketoacidosis)
• fat-soluable vitamin deficiencies

It's nice to have choices.

 

[Olowkow]

Can you really starve to death while eating rabbit?

Yes. If you eat really, really, really slowly.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I know that many people quote that "high protein diets are bad for kidneys", but that the actual study had to do with people who already are into kidney failure. The rest of us can handle by products of protein metabolizing just fine.

Ketosis is harmless to a healthy person, Don't confuse it with keto-acidosis.

Recent studies that compared various weight loss plans did not show any detriment to Low Carb diets.

There is no such thing as an "essential carbohydrate". Except maybe for a small amount of fructose for building membranes. We can live just fine without glucose. The liver only has to covert enough fat and protein to glucose to fuel our nerves, the rest of out bodies can run on fats. See the Low Carb idea.

nuff said?

Pardon? I'm a little confused. The thread's subject is "rabbit starvation" and that is not high-protein + regular fat intake but high-protein almost non fat intake. The only reference I found the moment I came across this term some years ago was a context of fast weight loss by almost exclusively eating lean meat and little else within an environment of high caloric needs, like living in the taiga without modern comfort. It's the use of body fat -hence the "starvation"- and the severe condition that emerges when body fat reservoirs are nearly depleted -from what would you get your prostaglandin, tromboxane, leukotriene, etc., then?-. Otherwise, it all revolves around "eating that and that is healthy until the moment you get sick". Those studies in the paper tell about a raise in the rate of incidence of many health issues in a context of a (mild) high-protein diet. Though it's dangerous to extrapolate those conclusions to a much higher protein intake context -with the addition of severe malnutrition that the studies didn't have- that doesn't mean that one cannot suspect potential dire consequences of such a dietary approach.

I suggest we all stick to the thread's subject and agree on what "rabbit starvation" is. I found this definition on the web: "Rabbit starvation, also referred to as protein poisoning or mal de caribou, is a form of acute malnutrition caused by excess consumption of any lean meat (e.g., rabbit) coupled with a lack of other sources of nutrients usually in combination with other stressors, such as severe cold or dry environment. Symptoms include diarrhea, headache, fatigue, low blood pressure and heart rate, and a vague discomfort and hunger that can only be satisfied by consumption of fat or carbohydrates. ". I also suppose that the rate of SUNDS is much higher, but I don't expect to find a paper with nothing else than anecdotal evidence on that.

I'm sorry if I'm being too strict about the topic, but I think to be important what the subject actually and systematically eats in a context of "rabbit starvation", because of there's a difference between the abuse of our bodies capabilities to adapt to different diets ("bottoms up! to life!") and setting a permanent imbalance until there's no way back ("bottoms up to life").

 

[GlennB]

This study puts the maximal rate of urea synthesis and excretion for a healthy individual at 65mg per hour per kg bodyweight (ballpark). For a 70kg person that's about 110 gms of urea per day, and if you're living on pure muscle protein (which is essentially the case with rabbit meat) then all your energy is obtained via gluconeogenesis and the (protein in) : (urea out) ratio will determine how much lean meat you can usefully utilise for general energy needs.

Before the idiot chimney engineer arrived I'd found a link such a ratio, but no longer can no matter how hard I look If you can do better there's the makings of an answer.

 

[GlennB]

We can live just fine without glucose. The liver only has to covert enough fat and protein to glucose to fuel our nerves, the rest of out bodies can run on fats. See the Low Carb idea.

You seem to be discussing a different subject from the rest of us. Eating nothing but rabbit meat is not the same as a typical low-carb diet.

And we cannot live at all without glucose. Dietary glucose, yes, but not glucose. That's why people are mentioning gluconeogenesis.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Gluconeogenesis is largely a red herring, because fats and protein are processed directly to ketone bodies when there is no glucose available for energy metabolism.

 

[casebro]

Gluconeogenesis is largely a red herring, because fats and protein are processed directly to ketone bodies when there is no glucose available for energy metabolism.

As I recall it, ketones are a by by-product of gluconeogenisis. And they come from fat, not protein. Ketones do get used as a fuel though, they are not just waste.