Author Topic: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?  (Read 22011 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,318
    • View Profile
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2016, 11:23:30 am »
Yuri was actually doing very good on low carb until he tried intermittent fasting.  For some reason it sent his body into tailspin.

I think different people react differently to low carb.  Some do really well and some not so much.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,639
  • Country: ph
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2016, 01:38:37 pm »
It was calculated based on my age, height, body weight, and approximate percentage of body fat I have using http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/
I'm sedentary (CAD worker/programmer), 25 yrs old, 6'8" tall, approx. 200 lbs and 18% body fat. I planned for a "maintenance" diet. Calories had 0 to do with it, only grams of fat, protein, and carbs mattered.

Hey thanks.

Now I'm wondering if those calculations work with raw everything.

I noticed I eat around 50% less meat by visual volume or weight compared to cooked.

Might be interesting to try it out too.

http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/
I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2016, 03:06:55 pm »
I suspect all raw will need less grams of fat and protein total as well, but mainly for fat. Apparently almost no protein is lost due to cooking, while around half the fat in typical cooked beef can be lost (not all methods do this). Since fat is the part you really need to make the diet work, and contains 225% the energy per gram than protein does, that is significant indeed.

Honestly right now it seems like even a fist-size amount of raw food is too much (besides egg yolks which are easy to gulp) because it just doesn't taste good, smell good, or look good at all to me. It does however make me feel good, but that feel-good is more of an energy level, and not so much satiation like cooked beef/fat gives (because its familiar to me, I eat more of it, until satiated). It is one hell of a behavioral challenge to change a diet like this, yet I know it would be so effortless if I had no choice (no option available) for just 3 weeks.


Offline eveheart

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2016, 09:20:22 pm »
Now I'm wondering if those calculations work with raw everything.

I use a food-values listing that specifies whether the values are for raw or cooked. It even lists fermented vs not fermented. I think the biggest factor in the difference between raw and cooked is the change in water weight. Also, some meats have their fats cooked out from cooking. However, keep in mind, that calories of each gram of macronutrient doesn't change so much as the included water does.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,639
  • Country: ph
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2016, 02:13:00 am »
How about sharing your food-values listing?
I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline eveheart

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #80 on: May 06, 2016, 02:29:13 am »
How about sharing your food-values listing?

The nutrition information of various foods is widely available online. A few databases are mentioned in other threads, such fitday, calorieking, and myfitnesspal. Then there are places to view the US government listings. Wikipedia lists nutrition information on the page of each food.

In general, one would rely on appetite signals to determine how much to eat. If a person is gaining or losing weight without explanation, food values might lead to information that helps diagnose the problem. I would caution against using the food values to crash diet, which is a form of orthorexia that can lead to various eating disorders.

GS, I know you help a lot of people with various health problems, and you seem to be very interested in the topic of calorie counting, which is really not pertinent to this conversation. Why not start a thread with your question, perhaps on the Health forum, so someone can give you specific information about your situation, and maybe our collective experience will help you guide one of your patients.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Yolk, Beef, & Salmon Diet, does this sound like a good idea?
« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2016, 05:27:39 am »
All the values I used for protein/fat/carb/calories in my diet plans are from the raw versions, or grass-fed raw versions.
The macronutrients are going to be similar to what those data show, that isn't the issue, the issue is that even raw foods that most people cook after buying in stores have their nutrition labeled as if you consume them raw. The nutrition labels here in the US have to assume you eat it just as you buy it, even though most people don't. Therefore, most people eat more food volume and weight vs their raw dieters. Calculators online are probably designed for those people, not for raw dieters. Either way, either the cooked food dieters are eating too little if they strictly adhere to calculators, or raw food dieters are eating too much. A calculator can't account for both cooked diets and raw diets with no option to specify the percentage of food you eat is raw or cooked. Similarly, there are not two-labels on most foods, one for cooked, and one for raw. It just comes in the form you buy it.

In addition to that, high quality raw animal food contains less waste and higher bioavailibility than its cooked counterparts, nutrition calculators can't account for that either.

Also keto-adapted bodies may be more efficient by evoking autophagy (using energy from recycling cell parts) to a lesser degree than fasting, which otherwise would only become waste (alternative fuel source).
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 05:43:32 am by panacea »