NU's Quest for Carnivory!

[NU_nutrition_TS]

As a meat-eater on a low budget, this is reassuringly informative:
Primal Wisdom: A Practically Primal Perspective on Conventional Beef, Part 1: Hormones

Quote

So, if for budget reasons you choose to eat conventional meat (hormone treated or not) instead of grass fed, you don't need to worry that its hormone content will harm you in any way. We will look at antibiotics and other issues in upcoming posts.

Having once been convinced it should be pastured meat or nothing, I am now of the opinion, like organic and so forth, it is all propaganda of one sort or another designed to make our wallets thinner!

On a personal note, I splurged a little this Christmas by making another (lowish carb) Christmas pudding (and mince tart) using dried prunes and ground almonds as the principle ingredients. And once again I have suffered for it! Principally the immediate symptoms are constipation (along with general intestinal discomfort and gas) and my skin breaking out quite horrendously. Once I have (painfully) passed the offending dietary items, these symptoms clear up.

My conclusion is that dietary fibre really is a totally unnecessary menace!

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Following on from the above post, you can read part two here:
Primal Wisdom: The Practically Primal Guide to Conventional Beef, Part 2: Antibiotics, Chemicals, and Pesticides

Quote

Relatively speaking, it appears that fresh conventional meat presents a much lower pesticide and antibiotic load than organically grown cabbage.

Consider also that antibiotics and persistent pesticides are ubiquitous hazards these days, and due to their presence in water and soil, may occur in “organic” and grass-fed animal products as well as conventional.

From my perspective, it seems that most conventional animal products have no antibiotic, pesticide, or chemical residues, and in the small percentage (less than 0.5%) that has residues, they occur in amounts that present no hazard to health.

Bear in mind that this is written from the US perspective and that their record, in this regard, is much poorer than the UK/EU. So I think we can safely assume that a similar appraisal of the UK conventional meat market would be equally, if not even more, reassuring.

[Wotan]

It has to be said, in case anyone has either forgotten or never knew, that cows have livers and cabbages do not. Cows constantly "detoxify" themselves with this liver. Cabbages on the other tend to accumulate "toxins" and when they reach critical levels suddenly cause the plant to spurt into seed production (a phenomenon called "bolting") and then die.

It is true that some toxins are stored to some degree in animal bone and fat tissue, but these are easily avoided by simply not eating these particular parts.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Part three (comparison of nutritional profiles between grass-finished and grain-finished beef) is here:
Primal Wisdom: The Practically Primal Guide to Conventional Beef, Part 3: Nutritional composition

Quote

Summary

* Meat from grass-finished cattle, bison, or other ruminants provides higher amounts of several important vitamins, minerals, CLA, and omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain-finished animals.
* Meat from cattle treated with hormones has less omega-6 than meat from cattle not treated with hormones.
* Feeding ruminants (cattle, bison, lamb, etc.) or hindgut fermenters (e.g. pigs) grain instead of grass results in significantly lower levels of omega-3 fats, but has very little effect on the absolute amount of omega-6 in the meat.
* Meat from ruminants finished on grain concentrate has low levels of omega-6 compared to meat from grain-fed poultry, most tree nuts, or nut or seed oils.
* You can easily achieve a desirable omega-6mega-3 fat ratio while eating large amounts of meat from grain-finished ruminants or hindgut fermenters by consuming reasonable amounts of fatty fish like salmon, sardines, and mackerel.
* The main sources of omega-6 oils in most diets include meat from grain-finished poultry, tree nuts, oil seeds, and nut or seed oils.
* If you include significant servings of any of the items listed in that previous sentence, you will have great difficulty achieving a desirable ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 oils because you will have to consume unrealistic amounts of fish or fish oils.
* Regular intake of fatty fish can easily counterbalance the omega-6 found in grain-finished beef, pork, bison, or lamb, so long as you minimize intake of chicken, temperate tree nuts, oil seeds, and nut or seed oils.

With respect to EFAs specifically, the take home message seems to be that, expressed in absolute terms (rather than as relative percentages), the differences are minimal and exclusion of seed oils and eating some oily fish occasionally are more effective ways of getting a good balance between EFAs than worrying about getting hold of expensive grass-fed beef.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

As I am currently still out of work - and money is exceptionally tight - I have had to cut back on how much food I eat (among other financial belt-tightening) in order to pay the bills and keep the roof over my head.

I do not habitually count calories but, in light of how little food I have been eating over the last several months, I just totted up today's calorie intake (and I hasten to add this will be fairly accurate because I have only eaten one meal all day and that was earlier this evening!). Including the cream I've had in coffees all day (no sugar) my total intake, with a meal of an 8oz ribeye steak & 2 scrambled eggs, comes to 1136 kcals. This has been fairly typical.

I've just used one of those online TDEE calculators and, for my gender, age, height, weight and activity level, I should be consuming 2538 kcals!

As I am neither gaining nor losing weight - but pretty much maintaining it at around 88 kg (BMI 24.89 - normal range for men) - and I have not noticed any major shifts in body composition (no extra bulges around the waistline!), how is this possible?

I am not constantly hungry, I am not lacking in energy when I do need to exert myself and I am not particularly tired or sleeping longer. So I do not think my metabolism has slowed to any great degree (though I am obviously not as physically active as when I was in full-time work but neither am I now totally sedentary!).

If a calorie is just a calorie - and weight (fat) loss is a simple matter of eating fewer calories than your normal daily maintenance amount - why am I not losing weight (water, lean or fat) hand over fist?

[MJ.23]

Quote

As I am currently still out of work - and money is exceptionally tight - I have had to cut back on how much food I eat (among other financial belt-tightening) in order to pay the bills and keep the roof over my head.

I do not habitually count calories but, in light of how little food I have been eating over the last several months, I just totted up today's calorie intake (and I hasten to add this will be fairly accurate because I have only eaten one meal all day and that was earlier this evening!). Including the cream I've had in coffees all day (no sugar) my total intake, with a meal of an 8oz ribeye steak & 2 scrambled eggs, comes to 1136 kcals. This has been fairly typical.

I've just used one of those online TDEE calculators and, for my gender, age, height, weight and activity level, I should be consuming 2538 kcals!

As I am neither gaining nor losing weight - but pretty much maintaining it at around 88 kg (BMI 24.89 - normal range for men) - and I have not noticed any major shifts in body composition (no extra bulges around the waistline!), how is this possible?

I am not constantly hungry, I am not lacking in energy when I do need to exert myself and I am not particularly tired or sleeping longer. So I do not think my metabolism has slowed to any great degree (though I am obviously not as physically active as when I was in full-time work but neither am I now totally sedentary!).

If a calorie is just a calorie - and weight (fat) loss is a simple matter of eating fewer calories than your normal daily maintenance amount - why am I not losing weight (water, lean or fat) hand over fist?

Your assumptions are based on a calculated value which is highly generalised. Humans vary greatly from individual to individual. For instance the calculator programs give me a calorie value of 3200 for bulking. I lose weight fast on such a low calorie number. I need 4000+ to gain weight.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

Your assumptions are based on a calculated value which is highly generalised. Humans vary greatly from individual to individual. For instance the calculator programs give me a calorie value of 3200 for bulking. I lose weight fast on such a low calorie number. I need 4000+ to gain weight.

All calorie-restriction diets are based on such assumptions and calculations - that doesn't stop people preaching that calorie counting is the be all and end all of weight management!

While I accept that the calculation is open to a margin of error - I do not think a mature male of my weight and height would even have a BMR of just over 1100 kcals per day never a mind a total daily energy expenditure!

As I conceded, I am not as physically active as when I was in full time work but I still get out and about as much as I can and walk briskly, carry shopping, do housework and general house maintenance when needed (gardening in the warmer weather). In fact, I probably walked somewhat less when I worked as I would often share my colleagues taxi home and sometimes get a lift on my way to work as well!

[MJ.23]

Quote

All calorie-restriction diets are based on such assumptions and calculations - that doesn't stop people preaching that calorie counting is the be all and end all of weight management!

While I accept that the calculation is open to a margin of error - I do not think a mature male of my weight and height would even have a BMR of just over 1100 kcals per day never a mind a total daily energy expenditure!

As I conceded, I am not as physically active as when I was in full time work but I still get out and about as much as I can and walk briskly, carry shopping, do housework and general house maintenance when needed (gardening in the warmer weather). In fact, I probably walked somewhat less when I worked as I would often share my colleagues taxi home and sometimes get a lift on my way to work as well!

Valid point. Perhaps you have evolved to be very energy efficient when a food deficit is thrown upon yourself? The whole world of calories is still very puzzling. Its a case of you think you have it; and then something crops up which just questions everything. Most sit in cognitive dissonance about the matter but im always up to question it.

Lots of people look at calories to base their nutrition off of but need to remember the types of calories they are consuming. The different fats, carbs and proteins are digested in different manners which throws a spanner in the work as such. Have you looked at the types of protein/fats you are consuming?

*Edit*

Another thought. As you have been on a long term very low carb diet; do you suppose this could be a link in some way?

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Now you have hit on what I was hoping to get to!

I think being a long-term low carber may indeed be a factor. Personal experience and comparisons between the semi-starvation studies of Ancel Keys (high carb and around 1500 kcals) and John Yudkin (low carb and around the same number of calories) shows that similar calorie counts but with differing macronutrient ratios can have vastly different effects both physiologically and psychologically.

EDIT
I should add that while my actual TDEE may be much less than most of the calculators seem to suggest (no one seeking to restrict calories can really know unless they go to a university research facility and have it actually measured in some way!), my BMR would be around 1800 kcals - still significantly more than I am currently eating and what I am currently eating is even less than in Ancel Keys semi-starvation study where the subjects not only lost a load of weight but also became obsessed with food and even suffered mental and emotional disorders to the point of physically maiming themselves!

[MJ.23]

Interesting. Im going to do some more reading around this.

Any initial hypothesis?