NU's Quest for Carnivory!

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Exactly, Duncan. People that profess to eat a high protein low fat and low carb diet are eating an 'artificially extracted' diet. Lean meat is a modern phenomenon and is usually the more expensive option too.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

The expression "thermic effect of food" is used to describe the energy expended by our bodies in order to consume (bite, chew and swallow) and process (digest, transport, metabolize and store) food. We "expend energy" by burning calories.

Processing protein requires the greatest expenditure of energy, with estimates ranging as high as 30%. Dietary fat, on the other hand, is so easily processed and turned into body fat that there is little thermic effect, perhaps only 2 or 3%. The amount of energy required to process carbohydrates falls between that of protein and fat.

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_thermic.php

As you can see when it comes to extracting energy from macronutrients, fats are the most efficient while protein is the least efficient with carbs falling somewhere between the two.

So, if as much as 30% of the energy obtained from protein would need to be used up in order to extract it, then you would need to expend 1.2 kcals for every 2.8 kcals of usable energy derived from each gram of protein. If you consume 25g of protein (100 kcals) you use up 33 kcals of that leaving 67 kcals (which is why protein foods are slimming!). However, if the majority of the calories going into your body are provided by proteins then you are not gaining the full measure of daily calories you may require for optimum health. If you require 3000 kcals per day and 40% was from protein and the remaining 60% from fats, it would break down like this:

3000 x 0.4 = 1200 less 30% for TEF = 840
3000 x 0.6 = 1800 less 3% for TEF = 1746

Total usable calories = 2586 (-414) 13.8% reduction

If you reverse the macro percentages so that protein is 60% of total calories and fat is only 40% you get this:

3000 x 0.6 = 1800 less 30% TEF = 1260
3000 x 0.4 = 1200 less 3% TEF = 1164

Total usable calories = 2424 (-576) 19.2% reduction

Each time you ratchet protein up and fats down you effectively get fewer usable calories from the same intake - good for slimming but bad if you need to survive in a harsh environment where food is in limited supply and you have to work physically hard to get it! In other words you would have to effectively eat more total calories in order to supply the body with its daily calorie requirement if it was made up mostly of protein and very little fat (and/or carbs). Not ideal if you are subsisting.

That is the essence of 'rabbit starvation' - too few calories gained by eating a lean meat diet.

[Ripped Barbarian]

Quote

Lean meat is a modern phenomenon and is usually the more expensive option too.

Absolute rubbish! I respect most of what you say nu but that just isn't true.

So:
-Nearlly all types of fish, shelfish
-Deer
-Reindeer
-Bison
-Horse
-Mammoth

Meats are modern phenomenon?

At the other end of the spectrum the fattiest meats are water foul.

Whilst i agree you need fat and 'more is better' in regards to eating lean animals i don't think large amounts are needed or ideal for health and training.

How much fat do you need to utilize a certain amount of protein.

There are people who live of reindeer alone and do not suffer any serious problems.
YES they take the fattier animals and have a preference for fat but this does not mean you'd be better off eating cuts of meat that have 50% fat.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

I said LEAN meats are a modern phenomenon.

Quote

Recommendations to reduce population fat consumption in Australia in line with the dietary guidelines issued by health authorities have focused on meat fat as an important source of dietary total fat and saturated fat (National Health and Medical Research Council, Dietary guidelines for Australians, NHMRC, Canberra (1992)). As a result producers have been encouraged to produce leaner meat for local consumption in order to meet consumer demands

[Ripped Barbarian]

Quote

I said LEAN meats are a modern phenomenon.

I know you did.

And i said they are not.

If i was to emulate a 10-30 thousand year old diet and ate red deer, reindeer, horse etc how would i obtain large amounts of fat that you suggest?

[NU_nutrition_TS]

As I keep saying they are not the same animals living in the same conditions, eating exactly the same foods or being hunted at the same times of year and at the same ages.

I think you will find those animals (today) are 'managed' and not just hunted down wild in the woods around rural England. I dare say those managed for food also have their diet supplemented at various times and are also subject to a degree of veterinary intervention.

So you cannot accurately judge those animals that were available in the wild to paleolithic hunters to the same species as they exist today in the modern food market. Also, as I KEEP saying, there are animals that have fattier deposits at more advanced ages and at particular seasons of the year - this is how North American Indians hunted caribou and bison; taking the older fatter animals not the young lean ones. By doing this they also ensured they remained in balance with their food source - younger animals left to survive will breed - older animals will have already bred and/or passed their breeding age.

Quote

We all need a little fat in our diet. But as we’ve become more health-conscious, meat has become much leaner – its fat content has been cut by a third over the past thirty years. So it’s leaner than ever.

You cannot visually determine the fat content of the meat you eat with any degree of accuracy. Fat doesn't just exist as lumps of white fatty tissue - fatty acids can be 'hidden' within the lean tissues as well.

With regard to the tables often cited showing the low fat content of game meat it should be noted that...

Quote

...the fat content of all the species listed is low because outside fat was removed before analysis

Nutritional Content of Game Meat by Lydia C. Medeiros et al, Departments of Family and Consumer Sciences and Animal Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming.

[Ripped Barbarian]

Quote

As I keep saying they are not the same animals living in the same conditions, eating exactly the same foods or being hunted at the same times of year and at the same ages.

I think you will find those animals (today) are 'managed' and not just hunted down wild in the woods around rural England. I dare say those managed for food also have their diet supplemented at various times and are also subject to a degree of veterinary intervention.

I eat wild red deer that has been shot in forests and moorland down south here, they are not managed (other than being shot), not fed any supplements, they eat the wild plants and grasses, there is little difference in fat content between the red deer from here, farmed deer from newzealand and reindeer from northern scandanavia.
Or types of deer from sub saharan africa for that matter!
Even deer that have access to lush pasture (such as the ones farmed in various fields around here) are still very lean.

The deer i eat ARE animals of older age, that's the ones they shoot.

They are nowhere near the level of fat found in modern cattle.

Are you saying that in the past such species of deer were somehow much fattier?, they certainly havn't changed much genetically or been selectively bred to any large degree.

Cows, lambs and pigs have, combined with being fed grains to fatten them up.

Quote

You cannot visually determine the fat content of the meat you eat with any degree of accuracy. Fat doesn't just exist as lumps of white fatty tissue - fatty acids can be 'hidden' within the lean tissues as well.

Oh i have done various experiments nu.
I have cooked various amounts of finely minced meat in water and collected the fat that floats to the surface.

With ANY part of venison, bison etc! you get a few little blobs here and there, it does of course have some fat (usually somewhere around 2-4%)
Do it with beef or lamb mince (even 'lean steak mince') and you'll get a thick layer of fat. (ranging from 10-20%) 5 times as much fat as the wild meats.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

I merely repeat:

With regard to the tables often cited showing the low fat content of game meat it should be noted that...

Quote

...the fat content of all the species listed is low because outside fat was removed before analysis

Nutritional Content of Game Meat by Lydia C. Medeiros et al, Departments of Family and Consumer Sciences and Animal Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming.

You cannot know the exact fat content of the meat you eat by mere visual inspection. It may be leaner than the meat from domestic animals but that does not prove that the carcase does not hold sufficient fat to offset the protein content of the meat or that you can't choose to eat a fattier portion as opposed to a particularly lean portion. Rump is actually one of the leanest cuts on an animal whereas back and belly tissue tends to be fattier.

[Ripped Barbarian]

Quote

I merely repeat:

With regard to the tables often cited showing the low fat content of game meat it should be noted that...


Nutritional Content of Game Meat by Lydia C. Medeiros et al, Departments of Family and Consumer Sciences and Animal Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming.

You cannot know the exact fat content of the meat you eat by mere visual inspection. It may be leaner than the meat from domestic animals that does not prove that the carcase does not hold sufficient fat to offset the protein content of the meat.

I have butchered and eaten red deer myself, i have observed butchering of cows, pigs and lamb too.

There is a hell of a difference.

Although i agree certain 'cuts' of these wild meats are more lean than they should be, such as fillet steak, i am of course not talking about these!

If i was to eat a whole deer (bone marrow, brains and all) what percentage of my calories would come from fat and what would come from protein?
I'd estimate a maximum of 20% fat.

Now a modern cow would be a different matter and even that would not exceed 50%

What am i meant to make of this with your theories nu?

[NU_nutrition_TS]

As I said, you have estimated based on visual inspection. That still does not preclude that there was, in fact, sufficient fat calories available to offset those from lean protein - even if it was still significantly less than domesticated animals.

Place what appears to be a lean, trimmed piece of meat into a dry hot pan and see just how much fat comes out of it!

Also, have you considered that ancient man found the extra fat content beneficial and that is why animals were first domesticated and fed as they were? Could grain production, or agriculture in general, actually have been not for the purposes of human consumption but as fodder for domesticated animals? Did humans only resort to eating the grain when their herds were depleted by disease or predation, perhaps?