Author Topic: Grass fed vs. Grain fed  (Read 18386 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Satya

  • Guest
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2008, 07:45:21 am »
I just don't know - Charles, the Bear, AV and many say grain fed is healthy. Perhaps the grass fed people are just trying to make money or has any body got proof or are we just all nuts.

A thought has occurred to me:  Maybe these more athletic-type people feel they are protected by their exercise and thus don't feel like this meat or that makes the difference exercise does.  I would agree in younger ages of some people that this might be true.  And also, I would be SO MUCH WORSE OFF  if I did not sweat and kick and lift weights and swim.  The fuel we put in our bodies is only one aspect of health!  I remember when I was  WAPF chapter leader trying to convince S. Fallon how important exercise is to health.  Deaf ears my pleas fell on.  There are so many factors to health.  Why not do the best you can rather than worrying about whether it is cost effective?

Nicola, you said raw felt right with you.  Well, how do you feel eating grain-fed v. grass-fed?  Any difference?  In my country, it is indegestion and diarrhea from the former.  And plus, I care about the environment and how animals live.  Just like many natives give blessings over the animal who gave up its spirit before they eat the innards.  How can you feel good about eating corporate bullshit raised in factories?

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,798
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2008, 10:36:22 am »
These films convinced me a long time ago:

http://www.themeatrix.com/


Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

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 Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2008, 03:50:17 am »
Nicola, you said raw felt right with you.  Well, how do you feel eating grain-fed v. grass-fed?  Any difference?  In my country, it is indegestion and diarrhea from the former.  And plus, I care about the environment and how animals live.  Just like many natives give blessings over the animal who gave up its spirit before they eat the innards.  How can you feel good about eating corporate bullshit raised in factories?

What I feel about eating grain-fed v. grass-fed? Well our mind will dictate a lot...and just because I eat grass-fed does not mean that all is well; I am very active, plus alkaline ionized water...well raw meat and fat is all I want to deal with (no nuts and bolts please).

This is Ted's diet:

http://www.slankersgrassfedmeats.com/the_real_diet_of_man.htm

Take care!
Nicola

Offline avalon

  • Forum Clown
  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2008, 08:27:07 pm »
Those videos terrify me! m&ms! Potato chips! And that's likely the good stuff.

I wonder what they feed the lamb from Australia in my market. They do sell Maverick Grass fed Beef and Buffalo.

And now with the FDA approving irradiation for geens, my heart sinks more and more.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/smarteating/entries/2008/08/22/irradiate.html

I need a Garden!

Satya

  • Guest
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2008, 10:56:54 pm »
And now with the FDA approving irradiation for geens, my heart sinks more and more.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/smarteating/entries/2008/08/22/irradiate.html

I need a Garden!

Right.  What I want to know is: Are organic produce products being irradiated?  I asked a friend, and she told me to call the USDA and ask.  She says they actually have well-trained staff to answer questions.  If I get around to it next week, I'll let y'all know what they say.

Yes, plant in pots if nothing else.  Here in N TX, it is time to plant the autumn greens.  I bet you could plant now too in your area.  I might be eating salads from the garden through Nov or Dec if the weather cooperates.  I total dig biodynamic gardening, and next weekend is the new moon, ideal for planting seeds with a short growth period - like greens.  Yes, the moon affects the tides and it also affects the little seeds.  It is a great system!

Offline TheWayCreatesTheWarrior

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • WhereHaveTheBuffaloGone
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2008, 12:59:45 am »

i believe Grass-fed to be far superior than conventional meat. not only in nutrition, but spiritually as well. now, of course in a perfect world i'd be hunting and killing an animal myself, but as for now obtaining meat/organs from a farm that lets animals roam around  is much more karmically positive than kept in the filth of factory farms.
and theres a rudementary philosophy on this as well, grains arent cow-food(if the meat were talking about is beef), so a cow fed mostly grain(plus soy, newspaper, other cows) isnt going to be healthy and therefore not healthy to consume.
There can be no mercy in the heart, of the heart, of the Wolf.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2008, 11:50:57 am »
I just don't know - Charles, the Bear, AV and many say grain fed is healthy. Perhaps the grass fed people are just trying to make money or has any body got proof or are we just all nuts.

Nicola,
After many years of following gurus I've come to the conclusion that I must reach my own conclusions.  One of the problems with gurus is that many are young and their bodies can tolerate much dietary abuse without showing any significant problems, and even when problems do occur the guru may ignore them and continue down a twisted path, convinced of the correctness of what he/she is doing.

TC Frye is a prime example.  He was a strict fruitarian even as his health declined and he died at the relatively young age of 61 (if memory serves) proclaiming to the end that his was the proper road.

Charles, is amazing, but still very young.  When I was his age I could drink 2 liters of soft drinks every day and still maintain a weight of about 175 without much exercise.  I was also a strict vegetarian for about 15 years, much of which spanned is current age group and I would have told you at the time that vegan was the way to go and would point to my own performance as proof that it was proper.  Again, a young body can tolerate less than optimal conditions and still perform well.

The Bear has had at least one bout of cancer that I am aware of, and may still be fighting it.  Afterall, I haven't heard much from him lately.  What caused the cancer?  Who knows for sure.  He has a long history of drug use and proclaims organ meats and grass fed meats are silly and that grain fed steaks are all you need.  After all, he is living proof!

AV is certainly well meaning and is probably responsible for many finding their way to a paleo livestyle, but he is all over the map with his reccommendations.  He changes the specific foods that he recommends as well as their proportions more often than I change my socks and I change my socks at least every day.  If you want to know what he's currently recommending then check your watch because if it has been more than a few hours he's probably changed his mind on something.

I read what all of them have to say and then test their ideas against what my experience and a bit of critical thinking tells me makes sense.  The question on this thread is Grain-fed vs Grass-fed meat.  Every biochemist will tell you that there is a significant difference in the fatty acid profiles of the two.  What they don't agree on is whether the difference is important to your health or not.  My test is simple.  Were grain-fed animals around during paleo times as our human species evolved?  No?  Then what was the normal food of the animals during that period of time? Grass!  OK, left to their natural environment, what is the natural food for our animals today?  Again grass!  This makes me believe that the fatty acid profile of the animals eating grass is probably the best one to support our life and health.  Feeding these animal grain is totally a modern contrivance to fatten the animals quickly.

Animals also start to lose their health in the feed lots when they are fed grain as their primary diet, and require constant attention to keep them healthy long enough to make it into our food chain - hence the need for antibiotics and other interventions that are not required for animals eating their natural diet of grass.  You also have the problem of the mutation of E-Coli bacteria to an acid resistant form that is dangerous to humans as it is no longer killed in our acidic digestive tracts.  This too, is created by feeding the animals an unnatural diet of grains and this risk doesn't exist in animal eating their natural diet of grass.

I'm giving you some of my reasoning for grass-fed vs grain-fed and how I've drawn my conclusions.  I don't need AV, Charles, The Bear, or any other guru to tell me what to do.  It is enough for me that chemists objectively agree there is a significant difference in the composition of the fat between grain-fed and grass-fed animals.  The fact that the natural food for these animals has been grass for millions of years and is still grass today, clinches the argument for me.  What could AV, Charles, The Bear, Dr Wigmore, Professor Hotima, TC Frye, or any other guru add that would be meaningful?

Think, we have money to spend but what about all those with children? Don't you feel bad, spending all that extra money and time (we may be food obsessed?). I just feel like that, when I go out in the world or go on different forums - Charles never talks about detox...

Can you proof, that you are doing right with spending time and money for grass fed just for YOU?

Just what expense are you talking about?    Since I went grass fed meat my food bill has dropped to around $7 USD per day,and this includes the shipping charges.   I don't know of anyone that is eating a Standard American Diet that can do it for even twice this amount per day - and I'd put my age and general health up against anyone.  I believe I could easily feed a family of 4 for about $20 per day if I made careful choices and used alternate shipping methods.  This is down right cheap.

Based on my own experience, I also bet a family eating grass fed meat as their primary food source would have much lower medical and dental costs over the years potentially saving thousands of dollars.  And this doesn't even factor in wages lost due to illness etc. 

Lex

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2008, 06:43:17 pm »
Hello Lex,

Your words always sink down deep! I tend to pick up a lot of pieces and some how the pieces don't give the result that I expect...

I mentioned having diarrhoea for a number of days; raw meat and fat upset my stomach and did not get digested. It stopped when I used the salt water flush but that gave me water retention after 3 times (days) so no more of that for now. Then I also noticed that I had a lot of water in the colon (from the diarrhoea and then the salt; mineral unbalance) and that does not feel good. I thought the extra salt would help the body make hydrochloric acid for better digestion but raw meat and fat just does not seem the same as when a person eats cooked meat???

What are your thoughts:

I mentioned a TV Program about the Neanderthaler (Sully's Journal) - they say, that one needs special enzymes in the stomach to digest raw meat and that cooked meat is easier and more nutritious. The Neanderthaler would cook their meat for better digestion if they had a fire going.

Nicola

Lex, would raw meat vs. cooked meat affect what you have been following on your journal (your health)?

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2008, 01:47:36 am »
What are your thoughts:

I mentioned a TV Program about the Neanderthaler (Sully's Journal) - they say, that one needs special enzymes in the stomach to digest raw meat and that cooked meat is easier and more nutritious. The Neanderthaler would cook their meat for better digestion if they had a fire going.

Nicola,
The first thing that comes to mind is how on earth could anyone know what was done 50,000 years ago or more.  There is so much controversy over what kind of food was eaten, how could anyone even pretend to know how it was prepared?  I totally ignore such statements unless there is some kind of overwhelming evidence that supports the statement.

Take a look at the world around you.  Can you name any other animal that cooks its food?  Do you see any evidence in the natural world around you that humans would have evolved with digestive systems that were missing critical enzymes so that they required cooked food to be healthy when every other animal on this planet evolved to eat its food raw? 

Take a look at what might have driven the idea of cooking food.  Take a hand full of raw uncooked whole grain and tell me how you would eat this without cooking it.  When we gave up the hunting life and traded it for farming grains, we had to find ways to prepare the new foods just to be able to eat them.  I believe that there is significant evidence that one of the prices we paid for this was a decline in our overall health.  However, even though the new foods were not optimum, they did allow us to support populations far in excess of what was sustainable through hunting and gathering alone - we just paid a price in health, stature, and probably longevity.  Again, there is evidence for this conclusion based on comparisons of bones from the various periods of human evolution.  Notice that I didn't mention that we started cooking our food because of missing digestive enzymes as there is no evidence of this whatsoever.  However there is clear evidence that you can test for yourself right now, that the new foods that humans resorted too as their populations grew beyond what local hunting could support, are almost totally inedible without softening then through some sort of preparation like cooking. 

Lex, would raw meat vs. cooked meat affect what you have been following on your journal (your health)?

We are rather adaptive animals and can do fairly well on a variety of different foods.  I doubt that anything is perfect.  Everything is better or worse by degrees.  If you look at someone like me or even Charles, our diets before we changed were so poor that just changing to a cooked paleo diet was a tremendous improvement.  Lets face it, cooked meat of any kind is better than a diet of soft drinks and Twinkies.  If I hadn't gone any futher I might have the same view as Charles - cooked grain fed steak is all we need. 

However, I tried to do some research as well as a bit of critical thinking to see if there might be an even better way.  I found references to bones of ancient humans showing that they ate predominately red meat from land based animals with very little in the way of sea food or plant matter.  I read Seffansson's account of his stay with the Inuits as well as his year long test of a meat only diet at Bellvue Hospital in NewYork.  I read the Journals of the Lewis and Clarke expedition where they lived on pemmican and the meat of animals they hunted along the way - and where they ran out of their flour and biscuits within a few months and pretty much were forced to eat meat only - all the while maintaining good health.  I read BYV, The Bear, Geoff's Yahoo Group, and other resources, which gave me the courage to try an all meat diet.  Soon after converting to all meat I reasoned that no other animal cooks its food so why would humans?  This lead me to try eating everything raw.

Each of these changes seemed to improve my health even more so I've stuck with them.  I've also stuck with them long enough to experience some minor problems like leg cramps along the way.  I added a bit of salt to my diet and the cramps went away and health has continued to improve as evidenced by my annual blood tests.  This lead me to believe that salt is important.

So to answer your question about do I think there would be a difference between eating my food raw or cooked, today I can say the answer is yes, but I wouldn't have known it if I hadn't tried eating my food raw, and more importantly stuck with it long enough to see the benefits.  The change from SAD to Paleo was a huge step with immediate and obvious benefits.  All the other changes have been small incremental steps that required significant time for the additional benefits (as well as the need to add additional salt) to become apparent.

Lex

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2008, 03:33:34 am »
Nicola, this whole business re raw vs cooked is absurd. For one thing, low-carb-eating tribes generally went in for hefty amounts of raw animal food(the Inuit would eat lots of raw caribou and aged, raw fish etc.), the Masai would eat lots of raw dairy etc. So, if cooked-low-carb diets are supposedly so healthy, why would these tribes desperately need to include lots of raw animal food in their diet? People like Charles like to make all sorts of claims,   but it would be most interesting to see how unhealthy he turns out to be when he reaches his 60s or 70s. And, of course, with people such as myself, deterioration as a result of a cooked-diet can occur at a much earlier date in life.

*Plus, pro-cooked-food proponents don't like admitting that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. I would be happy to challenge any of these pro-cooked-food advocates to eat a diet consisting only of a 100% diet of heavily-cooked, blackened,  grainfed meats(muscle-meats no organ-meats), for a period of 10 years. I doubt that any would benefit from such an experience.*
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2008, 04:37:34 am »
So to answer your question about do I think there would be a difference between eating my food raw or cooked, today I can say the answer is yes, but I wouldn't have known it if I hadn't tried eating my food raw, and more importantly stuck with it long enough to see the benefits.  The change from SAD to Paleo was a huge step with immediate and obvious benefits.  All the other changes have been small incremental steps that required significant time for the additional benefits (as well as the need to add additional salt) to become apparent.

Lex

Lex, with my thoughts about your diet eating raw meat and fat vs. cooked I meant in regards to the affect on digestion/insulin; eating the same cooked would lead to a different picture (weight, blood sugar, lab numbers...)

Nicola

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2008, 04:54:19 am »
Nicola, this whole business re raw vs cooked is absurd. For one thing, low-carb-eating tribes generally went in for hefty amounts of raw animal food(the Inuit would eat lots of raw caribou and aged, raw fish etc.), the Masai would eat lots of raw dairy etc. So, if cooked-low-carb diets are supposedly so healthy, why would these tribes desperately need to include lots of raw animal food in their diet? People like Charles like to make all sorts of claims,   but it would be most interesting to see how unhealthy he turns out to be when he reaches his 60s or 70s. And, of course, with people such as myself, deterioration as a result of a cooked-diet can occur at a much earlier date in life.

*Plus, pro-cooked-food proponents don't like admitting that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. I would be happy to challenge any of these pro-cooked-food advocates to eat a diet consisting only of a 100% diet of heavily-cooked, blackened,  grainfed meats(muscle-meats no organ-meats), for a period of 10 years. I doubt that any would benefit from such an experience.*

Charles has a grate body and we know what he eats; time will tell!!!

I was just so ill for a few days and then watched that film on the Neanderthals "raw food needs special enzymes and that cooked meat was better digested and nourishing" that made me quite helpless. I got all my energy up to ride to Leibstadt (my mother and fathers sweet home) and what does my father say: "did you watch that film about the Neanderthals"? He was enjoying his cooked meal (chicken) so I let him get on with it.

Nicola

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2008, 05:08:09 am »
Hunter-gatherer tribes routinely eat at least some raw animal food, so it's absurd for the producers to portray Neanderthalers as needing to eat cooked-foods. Besides, as Lex has pointed out, animals don't need to eat cooked-food, so there is no earthly reason as to why humans would need to develop a digestive-system designed for cooked- rather than raw food, due to natural selection.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2008, 01:25:44 pm »
Lex, with my thoughts about your diet eating raw meat and fat vs. cooked I meant in regards to the affect on digestion/insulin; eating the same cooked would lead to a different picture (weight, blood sugar, lab numbers...)

I have no clue as to how my lab values would be different if I ate all my food cooked rather than raw.  And to be honest, I really don't care if cooking my food would improve lab values. I'm not eating my food raw because it gives great lab results.  I'm eating my food raw because eating that way makes me feel better than when I eat it cooked.

My Journal is all about eating to improve my health and feel my best.  I've chosen to OBSERVE and report on the changes in the things I can easily measure like BG, Ketones, BMI, body fat etc. only because I find it interesting and thought others might find it interesting also.  If the values go up or down it makes no difference to me as long as I continue to feel great.  If my health fails due to what I'm eating (as it did when I was a vegan), I assure you that I will try something different - I'm all about what works, not trying to create some arbitrary lab result.

Lex

xylothrill

  • Guest
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2008, 04:32:44 pm »
*Plus, pro-cooked-food proponents don't like admitting that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. I would be happy to challenge any of these pro-cooked-food advocates to eat a diet consisting only of a 100% diet of heavily-cooked, blackened,  grainfed meats(muscle-meats no organ-meats), for a period of 10 years. I doubt that any would benefit from such an experience.*

From what I ascertain, the cooked low carbers who don't supplement suggest that fat and muscle-meat not be cooked above medium temperature for loss of nutrients. So, to a point, they do admit that no one can live on shoe-leather and grease alone. What gets me is that they deny the other end of the spectrum - that raw is the healthiest of all. The human body is a wonderful store-house of nutrients but alas, there is only so much. So many people are here because raw veganism eventually wrecked their health. It shan't be long before it starts happening to the cooked "meat and fat only" camp.

Craig

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,798
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2008, 04:52:26 pm »
I think we are getting there Craig.
The less and less the cooked paleo eaters cook their food, and later on they realize they don't need cooking at all.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

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

xylothrill

  • Guest
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2008, 05:09:50 pm »
I have no clue as to how my lab values would be different if I ate all my food cooked rather than raw.  And to be honest, I really don't care if cooking my food would improve lab values. I'm not eating my food raw because it gives great lab results.  I'm eating my food raw because eating that way makes me feel better than when I eat it cooked.

My Journal is all about eating to improve my health and feel my best.  I've chosen to OBSERVE and report on the changes in the things I can easily measure like BG, Ketones, BMI, body fat etc. only because I find it interesting and thought others might find it interesting also.  If the values go up or down it makes no difference to me as long as I continue to feel great.  If my health fails due to what I'm eating (as it did when I was a vegan), I assure you that I will try something different - I'm all about what works, not trying to create some arbitrary lab result.

Lex

Lex,

I don't think that cooked food would improve your lab results. There is proof that (cooked) high fat, low carb diets do improve lipid profiles and diabetes but that doesn't mean that Atkins is the be-all end-all of diets. If you had a twin, with the exact same history, who were eating the same diet as you , except cooked, he'd probably have had similar lab results as you but not be faring as well as you are! I'm not a gambler but I'd be willing to bet he'd not be around any more.

Cooked, low carb diets improve lab results because those diets require that carbs, which of course includes Neolithic carbs, be reduced and fat intake increased.

I've seen raw vegans produce lab results indicating that everything improved. In my opinion it was that they were not getting enough calories and were essentially on a calorie-restricted diet. Those lab results don't mean "healthier" either.

This is why I'm glad for your experiment! You tell it like it is in detail. You don't just spew lab results and base everything on them alone.  

Craig
« Last Edit: September 02, 2008, 05:15:36 pm by Craig »

xylothrill

  • Guest
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2008, 05:14:31 pm »
I think we are getting there Craig.
The less and less the cooked paleo eaters cook their food, and later on they realize they don't need cooking at all.


Edwin,

I agree! There are so many examples of that here alone and people in the process itself.

Craig

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2008, 06:00:38 am »

I believe that raw meat is healthier BUT, in my case, for some strange reason, slightly cooked meat makes me feel better and less tired. Am I weird or what?!

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #44 on: September 04, 2008, 05:17:42 am »
From what I ascertain, the cooked low carbers who don't supplement suggest that fat and muscle-meat not be cooked above medium temperature for loss of nutrients. So, to a point, they do admit that no one can live on shoe-leather and grease alone. What gets me is that they deny the other end of the spectrum - that raw is the healthiest of all. The human body is a wonderful store-house of nutrients but alas, there is only so much. So many people are here because raw veganism eventually wrecked their health. It shan't be long before it starts happening to the cooked "meat and fat only" camp.

Craig

Nice points, only cooking meat until medium rare is where the cooked 'meat and fat being healthier theory' enters a grey area!
I can definitely see the possibility of cooked meat and fat people moving in a raw direction over time.
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline yon yonson

  • Global Moderator
  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2009, 01:43:39 pm »
i didnt want to start a new topic so i'll post here.

how do you guys feel about grass fed but grain finished meat. i went to a whole foods the other day and the butcher told me all there meats are grass fed and grain finished for the last 100 days. is it worth trying these meats?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2009, 04:22:03 pm »
What you could do is eat that grain-finished meat and then supplement with some raw, fermented cod liver oil(the only good one I know of is the one sold by Blue Ice). In the meantime, keep on looking for alternatives.

I too have had dodgy sources of  meats which I suspected were grain-finished,at various times, and my solution was to go for wild game , instead, as that was guaranteed to be of high quality.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2009, 09:25:14 pm »
Yon, I don't want to depress ya, but I found out the other day that grain finished meat has exactly the same fat profile as fully grain fed.

In other words, the grain finishing eliminates the benefits of grass feeding at least in terms of fats.

Sorry man, but at least maybe you could get organic grain fed and save money for something else.

The positive news for some people is that if calves are fed on grain, then grass fed for the rest of their life it doesn't matter, it will be the same as grass fed.

Offline yon yonson

  • Global Moderator
  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2009, 12:09:47 am »
that's what i was looking for. thanks for that! not depressed at all, i'll just have to pay a little more for the organic grass fed meat next to it. but they only have one cut of it a day so i was trying to see if maybe grain finished meats had some healthy stuff left over from the cow's grass eating days. by the way, do you have a link to the article? i'd be interested

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Grass fed vs. Grain fed
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2009, 12:54:38 am »
Sorry, can't find it...I should save this stuff when I'm browsing.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk