No! Grass fed is NOT a keto rule

(Pete A) #84

I would love to be able to buy the most natural food with the best integrity but subsist on making the best choices I can with what I’m working with, which is my Walmart Neighborhood Market.

#85

If you ever read Dr. Gundry’s book The Plant Paradox you’ll hear him discuss the difference between pastured meat and feedlot meat. He says a lot of the crap they feed these mass produced animals shows up in the meat. Which I know to be true. He uses the quote “you are what the thing you are eating ate”.

I used the decreased food consumption we experienced on keto as an opportunity to improve the quality. We do more grassfed meat now but perhaps more importantly we consume better quality dairy and eggs. I love beef but it’s not great for you in excess, I try to stick to once per week. If you want to eat “clean” in terms of animal protein it seems like wild caught fish is the cheapest and easiest option.

(Chris) #86

Eh? Need to define “not great” and “excess” (really?) here, this is a little vague.

#87

Sorry, forgot I was defending my doctoral thesis. Excess in my opinion would be something like more than say 1-lb per week.

“Not great” meaning excess protein intake in general is not conducive to longevity, especially from animal sources. Also, there are things called AGEs which are much higher in beef than say wild caught fish:

(Chris) #88

So I breezed through the many different studies linked throughout that article, and frankly I’m amazed. They got results using the same methods that the meat = cancer people used. Funny because at the bottom they link to an article of their own speaking of how absurd those meat = cancer studies were.

The method in question? “Our ideal diet that we want to prove is best” vs. SAD.

(Rob) #89

You read that article? I’m not saying that AGEs aren’t dangerous (they don’t seem to know either) but that article was largely worthless and likely an exercise in FUD. It was the same story as Cholesterol… we see it in (some) sick people so we are going to theorize they are bad for you (to support our a priori theory). Then we are going to do some very probably confounded experiments (the low AGE diet was probably much higher in vegetarian products and whole foods and has very different macros and food quality, which isn’t very good but better than the SAD they compare it to). Then we aren’t going to quantify the results in the article and not reveal how very marginal (and very cholesterol centric :rofl:) the benefits of low AGE are when you dig into the studies themselves. When compared to a bacon-centric keto experience actually lived by many people here and you see the radically improved sugar, insulin and lipid results, I’m not going to give AGEs a second thought until they actually do some good science with definitive results :fried_egg::bacon::grin:

If I were the vegetarian-centric dietary research community, I’d be looking for something to take over from the now largely discredited cholesterol as the new anti-meat/fat boogey man… and I think they’ve found it. I’m just saying if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck… :duck:

#90

There is a lot more to AGEs. Not the best article I agree. But the point is they are very real. Also, looking at blue zones where people live the longest the restriction of animal protein is the one thing they all have in common.

Nobody loves beef more than I do, but it’s not the same as wild caught salmon for example. That was the main point.

Can you guys show me one credible scientist who thinks it’s a good idea to eat several pounds of beef per week? I’ve never seen such a finding, I’d be curious to read more about your points of view.

(Rob) #91

AGEs exist. There we agree. What the real specific impact of them seems completely unclear.

Neither of us have a strong case in science but we know the case against saturated fat is criminally weak and so, it seems, is the case against red meat (see that WHO Class 1/2 carcinogen BS). Unfortunately, no scientist has ever (and probably will never) be given funding to conclusively prove that red meat is ‘safe’ - it is against the core principles of the dietetic, medical and nutritional world - so that is a fruitless and befuddling request and unworthy of discussing AGEs.

Vague correlation between ‘blue zone’ diets and red meat consumption is also utterly inadequate to make the case for the danger of red meat. High red meat consumption is almost always confounded by the nature of the accompanying diet and the metabolic comprehension of the researchers so there is nothing worthwhile saying there. We do know that the few high meat/fat, low carb consuming cultures are pretty healthy but of course none of them have the full benefits of modern medicine for its longevity benefits in non-metabolic issues, so no real insight there. I’m not saying that excess red meat consumption is good for you but no-one has established the limit nor are there indications that exceeding it is particularly dangerous. There is an emerging case for protein limitation for metabolic efficiency but that isn’t the same thing.

It’s your choice to avoid AGEs but I don’t think you should make out that there is some sort of conclusive case that should make people who can’t afford grass-fed, etc. etc. afraid of the tasty, cost-efficient and metabolically effective sources of macros that are redeeming their health in ways that it is unlikely AGE’s could hope to undo if they are even dangerous. Just my 2c.

#92

Limited animal protein is a factor in longevity, are you denying that? It seems that people who really like beef are always the science deniers when it comes to this debate, I was one of those people because I love beef but I also listen to the researchers. Most of the experts I follow will caution against excessive consumption of red meat, especially from feedlots. I’ve seen very little evidence that salmon isn’t a far better option for example. Offal is a slightly different story perhaps but I’d assume we’re talking about ribeyes and sirloins.

I agree that the science is incomplete in some of these areas but that’s hardly a reason to ignore the evidence which does exist in my opinion. Out of curiousity have you read: Mercola, Gedgaudes, or Gundry?

(Rob) #93

Yes, precisely. I haven’t seen the evidence. Remember, we are looking at ‘red meat is bad for you’ NOT long lived people eat less meat - no causation. Show me the actual science… not just guru opinion (no matter how right they are in other things) based on 50 years of self referential research from a vegetarian-biased dietetic industry. PS You don’t have to try to convince me but I’d be happy to read something you think is conclusive. :grin:

The anti-animal protein folks are typically the science ‘fabricators’ - how much skewed bad science has been pumped out in the last 5 decades to denigrate meat. I would ask how you CAN believe the products of such a concerted attempt to turn the planet veggie? I know that is not your intention but I just don’t buy into the narrative like you do. I like Mercola as a source of all kinds of interesting tidbits but he is a (not at all) one man business whose product is a constant stream of content which shifts on the ocean of this, that and the other study, with the mission to sell books, supplements and assorted stuff to folks. I am not saying he is without integrity or conscience but he’s hardly the rock upon which to build ones beliefs. He literally sells grass fed steaks to his avid fans - he really lacks a conflict of interest in that particular debate?

Also ‘several pounds’ of fatty ribeye beef is fundamentally different from a macro perspective than the same amount of lean flank steak so blanket statements about pounds of beef aren’t even that helpful (unless you want to spin the AGE or cholesterol stories which seem/were custom designed to say it doesn’t matter).

I know it sounds a bit anti-vaxxer to you (as you do to me :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:) but the reasonable view is not necessarily true or really reasonable. Everything in moderation is not always the way as we know from the example of processed carbs.

I am NOT advocating excessive red meat consumption BUT I am saying you don’t have much of a basis for trying to scare people away from what works for them.

(Arlene) #94

Unless you live in a high mountain area near a pristine lake or river, wild caught fish isn’t the great choice you imagine. Ocean fish is especially bad, and getting worse every day. I purchased smallish tuna right off the boat on the northern Oregon coast several years ago. I canned it and sent a few cans to a reputable lab for testing. Among other things, it showed very high levels of mercury. As for price, fish is equal to the most expensive grass fed beef I have found. Fish is no bargain here.

(Ken) #95

Ah, the demonization goes on. Evil feedlot beef. Their diet can’t possibly be based on SCIENCE, it’s obviously a ploy by evil corporations who intend to poison us in order to increase their evil capitalistic profits. Technology now has the ability to measure in parts per billion, the question, as it is always, is amounts required for a substance to be a danger. The history has often been alarmism when in fact levels are too low to be a concern. Virtually all water now has traces of weapons grade plutonium in it, but in minute, yet detectable levels. Same with arsenic.

Mankind’s evolution has been towards Obligate Carnivory for literally millions of years, certainly for the entire genus Homo. We evolved on the meat and fat of herding animals, including cattle. That’s why the true paleo macro is 60/35/5%., the same as if you were eating herding animals.

Here’s an interesting bit of info.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

(Stan Brooks) #96

Yes? There has been plenty of people (the Maasai for example) who’s whole diet pretty mostly consist of red meat only.
No reports of early deaths in these people.

#97

So a calorie is not a calorie, we all agree there right? But the point you guys are making is a macro is a macro? Beef is the same as sardines is the same as cheddar? As long as the fat/protein ratio is the same it wouldn’t matter if a person ate a ribeye or a bowl of ahi poke or a can of pink salmon?

I’ve always understood the concept behind the effectiveness of keto to be largely hormonal, so without knowing the hormonal response of a given food for example we can’t know the answer I guess. I know in my case I can digest certain foods easier than others, and that certain foods like cow’s dairy cause my progress to slow.

Most of us agree that grains in the human diet have wreaked havoc on our bodies. Sure some people can seem to tolerate them ok, but a lot people cannot because arguably we weren’t designed to eat them. But where we disagree is you guys think the end product of another animal fed an unnatural diet is comparable to what was eaten by humans for thousands of years. Until I see some solid evidence otherwise I’m going to stick to what was done the longest in this case.

(Candy Lind) #98

True that! I am so glad to have finally learned how bad for me this stuff can truly be.

(Candy Lind) #99

I’m afraid to try it; I really can’t afford it and might get hooked! Maybe I’ll buy it and only eat it on my Scharfenberger 100% cacao bars like @MiKetoAF
does …

(Ken) #100

I’d say that the major disagreement is with the definition of “unnatural”. Feedlot cattle are not fed unnaturally. Cattle ate grain in the wild. Grain comes from grass. Technically, cattle eating grain are being “grass fed”. Humanity always preferred to eat fatty animals.

(Candy Lind) #101

Aw, now my hubs will be SO disenchanted I’ll never get him on keto! :rofl:

#102

That’s true but your argument is flimsy. They might have eaten some wild grain a few months of the year in limited amounts but they didn’t eat GMO wheat and corn for months on end. The impact that makes could be debatable but let’s not try to associate bison munching on a few pounds of wild grain in April with cows eating GMO corn and soy their entire lives and year round.

#103

I’m all for reading a study that ACTUALLY shows that, but in a decade of this I’ve never seen anything better than the typical saying of one thing, then you read the study and that’s not what it actually shows. Or shows somebody that ate lots of read meat ALONG with 200g of carbs a day, and countless other crap… but it was the meat.

Big fan of Dr. Mercola, but he’s not really keto and treats based on lower carb most of the time. Gedgaudes is Paleo and doesn’t eat the way we do and it’s pretty obvious she only likes keto “enough” to not alienate us. Gundry is a vegetarian in disguise as far as I’m concerned. I have a very different view of him after the Plant Paradox. Don’t tell me eating 3-4oz of meat is all I should be eating if I want to stay healthy. We need to be VERY selective with people who are not ACTUALLY Keto when it comes to this stuff. The rules aren’t the same for us. The Paleo crowd may have the most similarities but many of these people base a LOT of their info based on how it effects Paleo people and them, not how it works for us.