An average day-- does this look normal?
First, the caveat
--I'm not all too concerned about weight loss, I'm at 135ish lbs (61 kg) for a 69 in (175 cm) height, low to moderate activity level... No big issues there, I'm about right where I need to be. (Also, for those who take these things into consideration, my scale says that I have about 21% body fat... altho I dunno what that might affect in all this, just throwing it out there in case it matters.) Also, I'm nursing a 6-month old, so that should probably equate to a little extra calorie intake (anyone have advice as to how that appx 500 extra calories/day should be spread out in the fat/protein/carbs scheme? I really am not currently thinking about it, I just eat whatever has me not feeling hungry while downplaying the fruits and nuts)
Anyways. Here's the summary of this day from fitday... this represents a fairly average day.
Grams Calories %-Cals
200.1 1,737 64%
47.9 423 16%
46.7 396 15%
76.6 662 24%
137.5 521 19%
118.2 463 17%
Way way too much polyunsaturated fat I think. I'm guessing that you're not getting 23g of EPA/DHA so there's a ton of inflammation going on there. Generally I don't think that more than 10% of fats should be polyunsaturated so I would try to give up some and replace it with saturated fats.
I'm not going to bash carbs in the case of someone who doesn't have insulin resistance as long as they're vegetables and tubers rather than grains and sugar. Ideally I would probably give up some carbs for more protein. That's just me though.
Big issue is the polyunsaturated amount and more importantly the ratio. My big beef with fitday is that it doesn't distinguish between omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids. You might have to look on nutritionfacts for that kind of thing. Probably a good idea to look at mark's posts on polyunsaturates.
I sound like a broken record these days. I'm taking a good long nap. See you all!
*and away he goes*
Cronometer distinguishes between omega-3s and omega-6s I think. Just fyi.
Also, you can up your protein and carbs if you're not looking to lose weight. If you got in some fish and grass-fed beef, you'd balance out those fats.
Not entirely sure, tho I do get a decent amount of O-3s... My fat is coming from the following: 2 HB'd eggs; 2 "mini" avacados; 6ish oz. of roasted pork shoulder; olive oil; dark chocolate (pretty dark, tho not obscenely 72%); natural-type sharp cheddar cheese; alaskan wild salmon; almonds; walnuts; sunflower seeds (the avocados/pork alone count for a good 70g of fat, the nuts/seeds another 50) I also take a krill oil supplement that consists of 90mg of O-3, 45 of which are EPA and 27 of which are DHA
Cronometer says about 5g O-3 and about 43g O-6... Even with the fact that each of the two eggs contributed another 3g of omega-3s, it's still pretty off-balance... What exactly in the list above should be cut or reduced? Only glaring thing to me is the pork shoulder... btw, is there a variety of pork that's similar to free-range chickens or grass-fed beef, that's higher in o-3s?
**0.3g for the eggs (354mg)
The almonds and sunflower seeds are increasing your O-6s. Walnuts have a better ratio (1:4 I think?) but still a bit off. And sorry to disappoint but grass-fed beef and pork is overrated in terms of O-3s.
Why not add some sardines or salmon to your diet?
Aha. Good to know... tho I'm now somewhat confused, nuts are a good deal, yes? I had about 3-4 oz of them-- is that not a normal amount? Seemed moderate enough when I was eating them! ))
As far as the pork/beef-- I do actually eat a bit of salmon, I have it atleast once a day, sometimes for breakfast, sometimes for lunch, occasionally for both... My husband, however, doesn't care for fish so we have "normal" meat for dinner ) At any rate, getting to the point, it would seem as tho those people living a zillion years ago that didn't happen to live on the water would eat bigger animals regularly... and still be getting a normal amount of O-3s? How is that different today? Is it cuz they'd be eating leaner game than your run-of-the-mill grass-fed cow? What about non-grain-fed chickens? Also, how much is this a factor in the scheme of things? That is to say, if everything else is where it should be, is it a dealbreaker if I'm eating O-6-rich meats? Cuz I don't have to cash to buy a half of a buffalo or a coupla deer for the freezer... ))
Not nuts - walnuts. They have a better ratio than other nuts. And 3 to 4 oz is almost 700 calories - if your goal is to lose fat, you're probably going to have a bit of a problem with that if you're eating as many nuts as you are. They're calorie dense little buggers - you'd feel more satiated eating a full meal.
Free-range chickens eat grain, grass and insects - I have never heard of a grain-free chicken though I suppose they exist. And I don't think people living a zillion years ago knew much about O-3s. They also didn't have the glut of products with 0-6s that we do. The whole O3/6 ratio is about balance, not avoidance.
Well yes, I saw that you were recommending walnuts... what I was asking, though, in the "nuts are good, yes?" comment was in reference to the book's and the site's overall attitude towards "nuts and seeds"... But I am realizing that it's probably better to keep literally a handful of them around or none of them at all... Whereas I'm not particularly concerned with losing weight, I'd rather not gain it back unless it's in muscle form
Yes, I meant free-range chickens Can't keep track of all the meats! As far as the balancing though, the two biggest contributors to my specific intake are the nuts and the meat... so I can eat less nuts, but the meat'll still throw off the balance pretty significantly, so what should it be replaced with? Fish is a good choice, just not realistic for more than once or twice a day... So what's the next best? Chicken? Grass-fed beef? Omega-3 pork? Something else?