Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - panacea

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Off Topic / Re: Non-dietary approaches
« on: May 12, 2016, 01:17:28 am »
The Buteyko Method

It's focused on breathing through the nose, and trying to breathe less volume of air per second 24/7, awake and while sleeping, by improving lifestyle factors like exercise, diet, and mental perception. In order to improve at a quicker pace, the buteyko method highlights the role breathing has on things like exercise and mental perception. It also explains a tool you can use to monitor how food affects your breathing, and therefore how it affects your health.

The entire method revolves around the medical theory that oxygen is the primary fuel for the body. We can go a long time without food, and a relatively long time without water, but not long at all without oxygen in our tissues. The buteyko method adds to the oversimplified notion that oxygen does this by itself, by explaining that oxygen in your lungs and blood cells cannot be released from your blood stream without carbon dioxide present to allow it to do so. Therefore, the oxygenation cycle is completely dependent on carbon dioxide levels in the blood. By breathing large volumes of air, carbon dioxide in the blood decreases, this is why hyperventilating makes someone faint (brain shuts down), because not enough oxygen can get to the brain, because the carbon dioxide role in oxygenation is depleted. The buteyko method allows someone to consistently improve their carbon dioxide levels over weeks, months, and years by changing to a healthier lifestyle. There is a test you can do multiple times a day called the "control pause test" which relatively accurately monitors someones internal carbon dioxide level when graphed on a chart over periods of weeks, without any special equipment (it's free).

Furthermore, all the information about the buteyko method on that website is free. He sells books, which contain the same information on the website in a more organized form.

One major example of learning about this method is that the buteyko method says that mouth-breathing while exercising (in the sense that most out of shape people do it) is a sign that you are pushing yourself too hard. Exercise should be mostly aerobic, in order to affect more areas of the body, and should be done with nasal breathing only. It also explains that the best temperature to exercise is on the cold side, even if you get hot and sweat, for the same nasal breathing reason. The reason nasal breathing is better is mostly because it is harder to inhale the same volume of air through the nostrils as you can through the mouth. The less air exhanged per minute, the higher the carbon dioxide in your blood. Your brain will never let you suffocate by will power alone, because it monitors the carbon dioxide level, not the oxygen level, in your body.

This is also, to me, proof that carbon dioxide is not a waste gas, but is the single most helpful byproduct humans naturally create. It means life for plants and animals alike. It is more important than oxygen because it is more scarce, and desperately needed. The bad side effects of things like car exhaust come from other nasty chemicals that come out of it, not the pure carbon dioxide.

The main problem with the buteyko method, and even the diet the buteyko method advocates (a nutritional ketogenic diet) is that both are not normal behaviors for modern developed-country mankind. The gap that desperately needs to be filled is a method which reconditions human behavior, by understanding the principles of animal (human) psychology and behavior, and how to manipulate that behavior. Relying on will power, dedication, and perserverence alone means that for the vast majority, outstanding success only comes after lengthy trials of failures or when scared into radically changing ones life (for example, when diagnosed with cancer, many people will find the drive to suddenly start regularly exercising and eating better). 

Buteyko, a Russian doctor, noticed in patients that he cured, even from cancer, that eventually once they returned to a normal health state, a high percentage of them would eventually take it for granted and revert back into their old lifestyle habits, and the diseases would slowly come back. They would approach Buteyko again, and get cured again (if the disease didn't kill them first), and the cycle would continue. Buteyko did not realize it, but this highlights how desperately a psychological aspect of reconditioning a lifestyle is needed, something along the lines of a military bootcamp - which actually does tend to change most of the troubled teenagers who go into it who would otherwise likely become criminals or deadbeats or addicts into disciplined, physically healthy (although usually mentally brainwashed into violent) people. Buteyko method is a very lengthy process which must become a lifestyle, 24/7, with no breaks, otherwise all your efforts are for nothing. This is why it is mostly used for asthmatics and other serious conditions that have high motivations to keep up the work.

Another example of behavior reconditioning is religion (as a way of manipulating behavior) but that one relies on a much longer timeframe, capturing people early, etc, and is highly ineffective compared to how radically a military bootcamp transforms an adult persons behavior and perception in a short time.

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).

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.

"Yuri had problems on low-carb"
OK, my diet isn't low-carb, it's very-low-carb, to remain in nutritional ketosis 24/7. "Low carb" can mean 60g of carb a day all at once which can easily send someone out of ketosis, make them go back into "keto flu" symptoms and shock the body like a rollercoaster over and over again if repeated. Very-low-carb diets, nutritional ketogenic diets, aka really approaching zero-carb diets let you adapt to a ketogenic metabolism one time and remain adapted. This isn't "complicated", it's simple - don't eat anything high in carbs and don't eat a lot of carbs or protein all at once. Eat moderate protein and enough fat for daily energy needs. Where my engineered diet differs from most is that I chose only high quality animal foods, but more diverse than just beef, rather than any plant foods, spices, etc. at all. Also it is strictly raw, not heated past room temperature in any way, and minimally processed (such as butchering).

Most "keto" dieters I read about on the internet use cooked food like bacon, eat avocados (plant food plus high in carb), etc. As the "bear" said, uprooting your familiar diet is almost impossible for most unless you have a strong motivation to do so. My motivation happens to be how much better I can think and how much longer I can work while on a ketogenic diet (felt horrible on high carb in contrast, always thinking about food or the bathroom or sleep). I need to be able to focus on what I love which is inventing new programming routines, which requires almost constant mental "daydreaming" or imagination. Better health through ketogenic dieting gives me more access to that, I believe that a raw high quality animal food keto diet will give me even more access to those energy levels, and is a strong motivator, but it's still damn hard to change.

Genuine curiosity... how did you come up with the calories you needed to consume?

It was calculated based on my age, height, body weight, and approximate percentage of body fat I have using
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.

I've been reading other peoples complaints about eating a lot of "raw meat" and have concluded it must be because they are not eating enough fat. We must remember that lean beef, especially 90/10 lean beef, is extremely devoid of fat you'd find in the natural carcass. I went searching for this information and apparently the ratio of fat to lean beef in an average carcass is 30.5% fat and 69.5% beef, this ratio is in pounds of the animal carcass.

However what is not clear is if this "490 pounds of boneless trimmed beef" is trimmed to be 100% beef and 0% fat, or if it is 90/10, 80/20, 70/30. I'm sure it varies based on the cut of meat, but just about every cut of meat has some fat. Is this fat added to the total pounds of "fat trim", or not? I suspect not. If the latter is the case, then the percentage of fat is even higher than calculated (by about 49 pounds at least). If the latter is correct, then the average cow carcass actually contains more energy from fat than protein. IF that is correct, then it should not be hard to imagine why eating a disproportionate amount of protein from raw meat without the raw cow fat to go along with it causes problems in the long run, especially since high protein diets can kick you in and out of ketosis just like low-carb diets. I don't like low-carb diets, I only like very-low-carb diets, because you aren't rollercoastering in and out of ketosis in those.

So, to summarize:  A 1200 steer, ½ inch fat, average muscling, yields a 750 pound carcass.  The 750 pound carcass yields approximately:
490 pounds boneless trimmed beef
150 pounds fat trim
110 pounds bone
- See more at:

I'm not calorie counting, the calories listed in my diet plan are for ease of understanding where the energy comes from, since fat contains much more energy per gram than protein/carb. Calorie numbers help bring this to light. All I cared about in formulating the meal plan was grams of fat, protein, and carbs to maintain ketosis, not lose muscle mass (with a safety factor), and meet my energy needs (mostly through dietary fat).

After much thought, I've restructured my diet plan to the following (every day the same thing now for simplicity)

Every day:
12 raw egg yolks (646 calories)
12 oz 80/20 raw ground beef (540 calories)
1.6 oz raw beef fat (306 calories)
2.56 oz raw beef suet fat (620 calories)
0.5 raw salmon fillet (130 calories)

The vast majority of energy will come from fat still, but now the emphasis is on beef fat rather than yolk fat. Carbs are also reduced to 8 which only come from the yolks. I was amazed at how different the fat/protein ratio is between "beef fat" and "beef suet fat". Suet contains almost no protein, and beef fat contains quite a bit. I intend to mix both into the 80/20 raw ground beef to try and get it closer to 70/30 beef, or even 60/40.

One thing I'm concerned about is how hard some of the fat is, the grassfed beef fat (not rendered) and especially suet seem like they are too hard for human consumption at first taste, but that could just be the refrigerator (thawed in fridge for 4 days). I'm not too concerned about prolonged fridge storage of fat since it's mostly void of water and in airtight containers.

Does anyone else around here eat raw beef fat or suet without any heating above room temperature? Any things to watch out for?


What exactly is my proposed diet lacking?

I'm pretty sure it only lacks carbs, which are not necessary to the human body if ample fat and protein are provided (which they are).
Also where are you getting the idea that very low carb long-term has any negative implications, at all?

While I like your post, I think you should be keen to remember that "continual human intervention" is just another form of environmental maintenance. If all the bees on the planet suddenly went extinct, a lot of plant life and animal life would be in serious trouble or also go extinct. They are therefore reliant on "continual bee intervention", but you don't see this as a negative thing, neither should "continual human intervention" be seen that way. Although human intervention might be bad for other reasons such as low efficiency - it is not bad solely because humans have to intervene.

We and everything we do is a product of nature. Man-made skyscrapers are made of natures materials, assembled by nature's creations (man is a natural creature, even if he naturally uses his gifts to make a machine out of a bunch of nature's atoms). Your binocular vision and warning on technology is only true while we undergo the initial stage of harnessing a technology, eventually it will far surpass what is naturally provided in terms of letting us reach our goals, whether that be longevity or other resources.

If we never use technology, we are guaranteed to become extinct when the planet has an extinction event, and the planet will - asteroid collisions, solar flares, etc. are a constant threat. The only hope to survive longer than other lifeforms on this planet is to harness technology, which is simply harnessing nature using a more complex understanding of it than an ape using a twig to get termites from a termite hill.

If hundreds of people practicing a diet sucessfully for up to 50 years and several children have been born on it and have grown up into healthy adults on such a diet, then the typical SAD american diet would be very well proven to be safe...

Instinctotherapie relies on familiarity of taste, which largely doesn't apply to the modern environment of foods especially when first switching diets. Trying to hold on to "good tasting food" is only going to hinder someone from not finding an optimal diet, as they try to hold on to what they're familiar with. "Good tasting good" = substantial level of familiarity. If you are already familiar with healthy food, that isn't a problem, if you are not, it is a very dangerous "therapy" because it will lock you in to never really changing your diet drastically (which is needed for most people).

First, GMO's are not inherently dangerous, messed with in a lab, transparently, and improved upon at a fast pace (technological innovation). The same would be true of big pharma if the emphasis was truly on acquiring more knowledge than profit. What makes any technology dangerous is shortcuts for profit, which becomes even more prominent when you start trying to push an industry to the shadows through demonization. The same is true, in the case of big pharma, when the public adoption an industry (pills to solve problems) without a focus on technological innovation/understanding instead. If cloning, stem cell research, nanotechnology, etc was given public adoption as much as "curing cancer", "fighting aids", and other futile endeavors were the world would be very different by now.

To try and stop the future is the most primitive and savage thing you can do. Grain-based farming was a horrible futuristic trend that gave way to standing armies, vastly spread civilization and expanded population at the cost of lower overall health, until today when it's finally possible to get high quality foods, directly because of that grain-based farming "technology" which paved the way. GMO's have the potential to be super foods which are better than any natural counterpart, it's all about how good the technology becomes, not what state it's in right now.

The defeatist attitude is demonizing anything that challenges the norm, when one should strive for more understanding/testing/control instead. I agree that letting loose a poorly understood technology (GMO's) into the food supply is a bad idea at the current time, disagree that GMO deserves the label "very dangerous", drowning is "very dangerous" but people don't talk about it with an exaggerated panic whenever a bottle of water is around, because it's not demonized. Unfortunately, the public at large is a mob that is easily manipulated when there is a financial incentive, and there is one here, so the futile resistance method of the few to reject GMO's is only going to delay the progress that makes GMO's a useful technology in the end, instead there should be a push for control and understanding which an industry can actually respond to and grow with, it can still operate within those requirements. Telling it to just cease all activity for their new holy grail is only going to be met with shadowy corruption.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO's) are not inherently good or bad. A hammer can be used to bash someones skull in or build a shelter to protect from the elements. "Genetically modified organisms" should not be demonized, that is the same overreaction lesser minds in the religious realms used to shun cloning technology which could have achieved wonders by now if given public support. People should push for "GMO control" and isolation, safety, testing, transparency, and all of that good stuff, not lumping new technology into oversimplficiations of "dangerous/toxic". All new technology can be dangerous, especially when we don't know much about it at first, but it's the way forward. We can't be cavemen forever. It's not going to go away just because you are resistant to change. Embrace it in a positive feedback loop, and you have a better chance at not sprouting corruption which will advance the technology anyway, at a dangerously slower pace.

How wild animals know what to eat varies a lot
I'd imagine for carnivores that typically eat fresh-killed animals, they hunt by the smells and sights of the live animals based on pheromones or just general scent, nothing to do with the specific scent of the meat under the hide. Typically they select the weak small ones (child or disabled) in a herd or flock to kill, hardly the most "optimum" but as in all of nature, they are limited by what's available.

If I had a ton of Cheetos (very unhealthy type of potato chip) and nothing else to eat, eventually after enough days even though I think Cheetos are disgusting, I'd eat them to fruitlessly stay from starvation. The same is true for raw meat or any other edible food. The longer I go without what my body wants nutritionally, the more open I am to new foods (good or bad). Using intellect we can try to select which foods are best, but we may be wrong. I don't believe that "bad" foods like cooked/processed fries and milkshakes etc cause my taste and smell to be out of whack, I think they alter what the brain is familiar to eating, and therefore what tastes familiar (safe/good) and what doesn't (weird/bad). If a new food has enough similarity to old food, even if it's a completely new food (for example: trying something which is not a chicken wing but tastes exactly like it with a similar consistency) the brain is more inclined to "like" it right from the start. Behaviorism > Instinct, even dogs that have been raised on non-raw meat pet food, and haven't scavenged and happened to eat wild kills while growing up almost always will not eat raw meat without training (mixing old food in with the new to trick them). All animals are subject to operant conditioning, but highly cultural animals like humans are vastly more impressionable by culture/others behavior and our own behavior feedback loop than any other type of animal. I've seen dogs walk right up to a raw steak and lick it and walk away as if it was worse than pet food, simply because their brain had been conditioned otherwise. Given enough time away from pet food of course they will eat it, 5 years later given enough time away from raw meat they will again eat pet food. In the wild, when you are not given pet or human food, you have starvation or you eat whats available. After you do that for awhile, you become accustomed to what's available in that local area, whether your parent animals fed you it as a baby or not.

The whole "instinctotherapie" thing seems to be a dangerous road where you only eat what "tastes" good at the current moment, when that has nothing to do with what is optimal, as all animals raised in captivity (humans included) are proof of (ignoring their natural food such as raw flesh for home-caged pet-feed dogs). There is transition food by "mixing" which tricks the animals into eating healthier without starving/fasting first, but no magical "intermediary" foods that are healthier but also different than what we're familiar with.

Oh, in that case, humans do the same thing with fruits and other plant foods that can be unripe, ripe, or rotten.
But with animal foods they are basically always clearly "ready to eat" in the wild unless there is obvious evidence, such as flies and insects devouring the rotting flesh (plus the smell is unmistakable and you don't have to get close to tell), so while I can see the merit of taste/smell in distinguishing if something is ripe/unripe/rotten/ready to eat, how in the world is it supposed to tell you what you are supposed to eat much less what is optimum to eat at any given time?

Cease completely to eat cooked, processed, mixed foods and in a few days most raw foods will become attractive and delicious to you, according to your current needs. It may not be immediately meat, eggs or salmon but something else. 

Seems like he was saying "instincto" tells you what nutrients you need based on what taste/smells good. In my experience I can tell if I need a protein-rich meal or a fat-rich meal or both simply by what I crave, when all food is locked in a fridge or freezer and I can't taste or smell it.

Again I don't agree with you, more foods will become attractive the longer you abstain from food no matter what the foods are. If you go starving for long enough, your own body parts or the human bodies of others start to look tasty. That is definitely based on instinct (to survive) but it doesn't really tell you what are the optimum foods. Simply making yourself more hungry so you can stomach new foods (healthier ones) is a sound strategy, but you have to intellectually know which foods are healthier using your brain, not sense of taste/smell, until your body is familiar with it and associates certain tastes/smells with not being a danger, and making you feel energetic. That is very hard to do to isolate what foods are good unless you only eat one thing at a time, or know before hand which foods are best using your intellect. Also, eating one food at a time will most likely cause nutritional deficiencies which increase hunger, and even increase hunger for subpar foods to try and compensate. In short, I don't put much stock in "instinct" because the environment around us is completely full of non-evolutionary stimuli. We are in a new "jungle" of food with an outdated taste navigation system that can never catch up without intellect filling the gaps.

Sorry I don't buy it, if our instinct is fooled by processed, mixed, heated stuff, then why does my taste tell me when I eat raw grassfed beef, egg yolks, or salmon, that it isn't delicious? That isn't processed, mixed, or heated stuff. Basically, eating what I evolved to eat doesn't give me any good signals yet, and there are no direct "processed, mixed, heated stuff" interfering with my taste buds at that time.

The truth must be that it's the brain, familiarity most of all of taste, texture, temperature of food, consistency, flavor, etc that tells us what is good or not at that moment. Kids in other countries treat raw live caught tarantulas as a delicacy, and when given the option would prefer that type of food over McDonalds (they did a test of this in their school) that is a behavioral/cultural adaptation, not an evolutionary one. In the US kids would prefer McDonalds over tarantulas, etc. Everywhere you go, people prefer what they are used to, in the forms they are used to, since taste is largely subjective to what you're used to.

I don't trust what tastes "good" because junk foods like fried fries tasted great, so do healthier foods like scrambled eggs, yet raw egg yolks don't taste good and are basically the same food as scrambled eggs, therefore my "tastes good" can't be trusted, at least not yet. I do however trust my taste/smell if something tastes or smells "off" such as being rancid, bitter when it shouldn't be, and stuff like that.

I know I feel good eating yolks, beef, and salmon from brief experiments, maybe it's not as good as it can get, but it's in the right direction it seems. There is a second part to cravings besides just carbs. Even on a ketogenic diet (less than 30 carbs a day) I crave cooked food, preferably hot, and most importantly familiar food (raw beef/yolks/salmon is not familiar for me yet). I'm confident that if I can keep with the diet I planned in this thread for as little as a month I'd be "over the hill" on that craving-battle, either by becoming accustomed to the foods via habit or my body gets used to it chemically.

I've decided that if the quantity of yolks bothers me at all down the experimental road, the next thing to try is increase the quantity of raw beef and mix it with raw beef fat to get the grind closer to 70/30 manually (suet or regular beef fat), and decrease the yolks to about 12 a day. Does anyone know where the fat in 80/20, 90/10, and 70/30 grinds of ground beef comes from? Is it from fat on other parts of the animal mixed into the lean meat, or is the fat usually just nearby? I'm concerned that not all fat on the animal is equal (because I've read animals store a lot of accumulated fat-soluble toxins depending on the location of the fat).

There's nothing going on with me, liver included, I'm a young person in a normal health state with no direct ailments other than feeling a little off while being on a high carb diet and especially junk food diets.

I'm not even attracted to eggs, the cooked ones (scrambled) taste delicious but the raw yolks, while more bearable than many other raw foods, don't attract me at all. They simply have the correct macro nutrients I need (fat to protein ratio) and are packed  full of vitamins, omega oils, etc without any anti-nutrients or fiber to get in my way to speak of.

Not a single raw food attracts me currently except perfect fruit juices from fresh ripe fruit - which I don't consume because they bring out carb-cravings and lead to junk food consumption.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Raw pork
« on: April 29, 2016, 01:58:08 pm »
I did some research on bacon, which may be somewhat relevant.

Commercial bacon used to momentarily cause trichinosis outbreaks decades ago, which is a nasty parasite infection mostly making you feel very sick, hospitalized, and rarely kills you (if you're elderly or weak in some way). In the last few decades they changed the way they raise and feed pigs commercially (stopped feeding them literal garbage, perfect example of why animals need to be fed/raised properly to be healthy), which all but prevents the parasite. Furthermore, virtually all commercially sold bacon is put in a blast freezer after it is smoked, which again kills the parasites. The smoking doesn't completely kill them, although it can reduce the number on the outer surface. In conclusion, virtually all commercial bacon in the US and Europe are in all likelihood parasite free - you could safely eat it all the time. If you ever did get trichinosis from this type of bacon, it would likely be in a small amount and not fatal, more like a bad flu, since it's not going to be swarming with it. Microwaving "raw" bacon doesn't even kill it all, and yet people eat microwaved-at-home bacon all of the time. Basically, despite all the hysteria, commercial "raw" bacon is safe to eat uncooked. The catch? Raw bacon in stores isn't actually raw, it's smoked, which is a form of cooking in this case. Furthermore, most of it has stuff added to it either by spraying or injection. It's a shame because bacon is one of the most delicious and fatty (good thing) animal foods there is.

Walmart is where I get them, I've never bought the white standard eggs in my life, but the brown free range ones from some brands seem perfectly fine, the yolks are vibrant in color and the sacs containing the yolk are strong (dont break by being handled), which is what I go by since I refrigerate mine.

Why does eating 24 or 33 yolks a day seem so crazy? People eat only ground beef for much of their calories and that seems along the same lines. Yolks are small in volume compared to the entire egg, it would take about 25 egg yolks to fill a 16 oz container. Considering that a gallon is 128 oz, a gallon of milk is over 5 times the volume of 25 egg yolks, would you think someone is insane for drinking 1/5 gallon of milk every day, since milk is even more lopsided nutritionally than egg yolks?

The reason I chose egg yolks as my staple and not beef - I can't find grass fed grass finished 70/30 grinds of raw ground beef conveniently where I live. Egg yolks contain more fat and less protein per gram than beef, so I can better reach my goals of not overconsuming protein each day by eating more of the yolks. Fish (salmon) are even more protein rich and fat lacking, so I have to increase fat somehow on days I eat the salmon. I want the salmon for the omega fats, and the diversity. I want the beef because it's nutritionally a perfect food (but too much protein as a 80/20 grind which is all I got), and the yolks are the best replacement I can find for "fatty high quality animal foods".

People thought eating only the yolks was "weird", I was reminding them that sort of thing happens all the time.
People waste nutrients by cooking food that is edible raw, that destroys some amount of nutrients, which go to waste in the air.
People also "waste" nutrients by throwing some part of food away, although it could be argued that this "waste" eventually is fed upon by critters anyway, and is actually less "wasteful" than cooking.
You can also "waste" food simply by eating too much, and making your body use that fuel more inefficiently.
To me the idea of "wasting" food and having to eat the whole animal is an antiquated idea from times of scarce food resources. We have plenty of resources to eat now, but not enough resources to transport the food to all places. I am choosing to select only the best food sources I can get my hands on and afford, which means discarding the whites.

@people concerned with eating only the yolk
The practice of discarding some part of a food the way nature packages it is done for almost all raw foods nowadays even by instinctos or whatever - you discard the shell of the egg, you discard the shells of many nuts, many often discard the skin of fish (for parasites), as well as eyes/organs, people don't eat the hide of cattle (in regards to beef), etc, even though all of these are technically things a carnivore might eat whole in "nature." I'm discarding the white because too much of it may cause a biotin deficiency, and it doesn't contain the balanced level of nutrients I desire like the yolk does.

@zero-carb being high protein
my meal plan accounts for roughly 132g of protein per day, being a 6'8" tall young adult male with about 20% body fat, that is only slightly over what I need not to lose muscle mass, I wouldn't consider this "extra protein" that needs any special abilities to handle.

@eveheart's selenium response
Thanks, that makes me feel a little better, I'm going to see if I can't dial back the 33 yolk days to 24 and increase beef with added suet/fat intake to try and keep selenium down, although you make a good point about real food, there may be more than we know going on.

One thing I'm concerned about is the level of selenium from so many egg yolks every day. The "upper intake levels" for selenium in adults is 400 mcg, with my diet I would be getting about 283 mcg on day type 1, and 377 mcg on day type 2. These levels are below the FDA's upper limit, but far above the 55 mcg RDA... I don't know if that means it would cause problems.

To put this into perspective however, approx. 6 brazil nuts can contain 544 mcg of selenium, but I doubt people are eating that much every day like I would be eating yolks every day, and it's a known fact that a lot of people get sick from brazil nuts (probably because of the selenium).

I'm going by multiple sources I read for the 30g/day limit, although (see meal plan below) I will basically be below 20g/day. I'm not diabetic or anything, so hopefully my tolerance is at least 20g/day.
I've been a slave to carbs my whole life. I tried cooked keto (mostly bacon and cheese) for a month and my carb cravings went wayy down and I can finally control my diet, something I've never been able to do before, I miss carb foods but I never want to go back to being a slave. I found that even just tasting a food rich in sugar, even if it's relatively low in carbs (such as low carb milk by fairlife), my carb cravings would come back. However, not as strong as they were before, so I'm able to beat them now, but I don't like having to fight them in the first place, hence why I decide to stay away except for the yolks (which don't seem to affect me that way).

A meal plan would look like this:

Day Type 1:
24 raw egg yolks (108g fat, 14.4g carb, 64.8g protein)
13 oz 80/20 raw ground beef (72.8g fat, ~0g carb, 62.4g protein)
Total: 180.8g fat, 14.4g carb, 127.2g protein

Day Type 2:
33 raw egg yolks (148.5g fat, 19.8g carb, 89.1g protein)
3 oz 80/20 raw ground beef (16g fat, ~0g carb, 14.4g protein)
1 fillet of raw wild caught sockeye salmon (12g fat, ~0g carb, 36g protein)
Total: 176.5g fat, 19.8g carb, 139.5g protein

And I would just alternate day type 1 and 2. Conveniently, after two days, I would know I need to buy/have 4.75 dozen eggs, 1 lb of beef, and 1 fillet of salmon for the next 2 days. Since it's raw and mostly egg yolks, it's a very liquid and extremely dense nutrient diet.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk