Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

eating chicken and fish instead of steak

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eating chicken and fish instead of steak



    I would like to know what people think of eating meat all the time. The reason I ask, is the calorie count. It seems to me if people are trying to lose weight, why would you eat high fat meat every night? I love steak, but even though it doesn't have carbs, it still has calories. Even in a low carb diet, the lower the calories can only help. Right?


  • #2
    1



    Well, this IS a high-fat diet, and that is what promotes fat loss. I don't think calories matter much when you're low-carb.

    .`.><((((> .`.><((((>.`.><((((>.`.><(( ((>
    ><((((> .`.><((((>.`.><((((>.`.><(( ((>

    Comment


    • #3
      1



      I don&#39;t know that you can ever say calories don&#39;t matter. I think having a higher protein diet, along with the fat, helps to keep the calories down. I seem to be eating lower calories overall since focusing on this. The processed carb calories, that are omitted on this diet, are the ones that never seem to satisfy and spin you into the insulin response/ carb chasing cycle.


      FYI Cody, I would think a balance of meat, fish and chicken would be optimal. I tend to focus mostly on fish.

      Comment


      • #4
        1



        Calories don&#39;t matter in the way most people think.


        I eat a lot of fatty meat every night and continue to lose bodyfat.


        Chicken doesn&#39;t seem much like food anymore. They grow twice the size in half the time. I don&#39;t trust them as a food source anymore than CAFO beef. A lot of fish is now farmed also and subject to the same problems.

        The "Seven Deadly Sins"

        Grains (wheat/rice/oats etc) . . . . . Dairy (milk/yogurt/butter/cheese etc) . . . . . Nightshades (peppers/tomato/eggplant etc)
        Tubers (potato/arrowroot etc) . . . Modernly palatable (cashews/olives etc) . . . Refined foods (salt/sugars etc )
        Legumes (soy/beans/peas etc)

        Comment


        • #5
          1



          Speaking for my self, calories matter. I stay away from the high fat stuff except for the occasional treat. There&#39;s plenty of us primals that don&#39;t eat high fat meats, including Marks wife.

          Comment


          • #6
            1



            Is Cafo beef similar to Kobe beef?

            Comment


            • #7
              1



              CAFO beef is commercially-grown, grain-fed steers.

              Kobe Beef is probably just as screwed up, but the animals are treated better---they get beer and massages. That&#39;s why it&#39;s so expensive.

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

              Comment


              • #8
                1



                Supposedly, Kobe beef is overrated:


                http://www.members.tripod.com/~BayGourmet/wagyu.html


                I eat high fat at every meal -- fatty parts first, then the lean. I don&#39;t count calories, but I eat to satisfaction rather than to the "stuffed" point. Calories count, but not in the way you think, and they certainly don&#39;t count as much as carbs.


                BTW, I have always been amused at the idea that "meat" does not include fish and chicken. In my world, meat is meat!

                Comment


                • #9
                  1



                  Calories are adjusted to your energy needs, of course...but, I do think 2,000 calories of mainly carbs is going to be different than 2,000 of what we&#39;d here call &#39;primal&#39;. I tend to have bacon in the morning, chicken at lunch & dinner varies, but it could be steak or beef fajitas - my calories are between 1,500 and 1,800 which is fine for me. Eating red meat doesn&#39;t have to equate to high calories. I&#39;m simply one of the folks who thrive on red meat - feel better all around whenever I have a rare steak or rare meat of any kind...but, I keep my steaks to probably a quarter to less than a quarter pound...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1



                    High fat meat is pretty filling. I don&#39;t see how it would be a problem where calories are concerned as long as you&#39;re eating primal.

                    You lousy kids! Get off my savannah!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      1



                      It amuses me when poeple think the same amount of fat and the same amount of carbs or sugar calorie wise gets metabolized in the body exactly the same way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        1



                        i eat all of those meats but i def will say i&#39;m much more full on less red meat than a big serving of fish. i eat different meats for the variety and also to keep my body guessing

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          1



                          Because of metabolic issues, I have to seriously restrict calories in order to lose weight. However,

                          I am less concerned about meat or fish than the source of my protein. I don&#39;t eat factory farmed animals--ever, and I prefer wild-caught fish. I will only eat wild salmon.


                          In terms of fat, I think I get enough (from my homemade mayo and olive oil that I use to dress veggies and fry my eggs), but I prefer leaner meat. I buy grass-fed bison, which is leaner than beef but tastes similar.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            1



                            This forum has a couple of people who ate upwards of 4,000 calories per day, all protein and fat, and either lost weight or did not gain weight.


                            MAM stands for metabolic advantage movement. The claim is that when you bring your carbs to zero, you can eat all the protein and fat and not gain weight (and in some cases, lose weight, if you have weight to lose).


                            http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/ftopic846-0-asc-0.php


                            I feel like I&#39;ve read somewhere about a study comparing isocoloric diets of low-fat and low-carb and that the low-carb did have a metabolic advantage. That is, with the same number of calories but different macronutrient breakdown, people on low-carb lost more weight than people in low fat. Does anyone have a reference for this?

                            Everything in moderation, including moderation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              1



                              BMR is not a fixed number and can be changed significantly by diet and strength training.


                              Here&#39;s a bit of info about &#39;metabolism&#39;:


                              http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/...r-thyroid.html

                              The "Seven Deadly Sins"

                              Grains (wheat/rice/oats etc) . . . . . Dairy (milk/yogurt/butter/cheese etc) . . . . . Nightshades (peppers/tomato/eggplant etc)
                              Tubers (potato/arrowroot etc) . . . Modernly palatable (cashews/olives etc) . . . Refined foods (salt/sugars etc )
                              Legumes (soy/beans/peas etc)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X