3 ms·

> Most meat has a perfectly fine proportion of fat to protein. I think popular cuts (pork butt, chicken thighs) have worse proportion than that.

tracker1 3y ago
Here's the nutrition information for a 3-ounce serving of skinless chicken thigh, per the USDA: 9 grams fat. 20 g protein. About 1g fat per 2g protein in the chicken thigh. It's far higher than more recent recommendations, but those have been far too low in terms of natural fat intake. Pork butt is about 20g protein and 16g fat, which isn't in and of itself bad, as it can still be used for energy (like carbs can). If you look at a lot of western nutrition issues, most are centered around lack of fat soluble nutrients and hormone deficiencies, which are sourced significantly from fatty acids. Edit: there's also obesity, but fat is far more satiating than carbs and tend not to cause the insulin/carb cycling in terms of hunger response that you get from sugars and simpler carbs. In the end, one should not be specifically avoiding fats from animals in natural proportions. That isn't to say you cannot overeat meat, only that it's less likely than overeating from other sources.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > 3-ounce serving of skinless chicken thigh skinless is obviously not popular cut. > tend not to cause the insulin/carb cycling in terms of hunger response they contribute to extra calories.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    More than half the calories people take in is purely for energy. Excess is excess, it doesn't matter so much that it's fat or carbs. The difference being that if you're downing refined sugar or heavily processed foods there's other negative impacts that you don't see from excess fats. Unless you're suggesting that getting an extra ounce of natural animal fat is worse than eating something like a cereal bar with lots of refined chemical additives that aren't real food, including refined fats that don't even exist and would never be taken in in nature?
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      My point is very simple: person can over consume calories from animal fat the same way as from processed food or refined sugar. Fat is 2.5 more dense in calories, and switching to lean meat can cut calories intake significantly.
      - tracker1 3y ago
        And doing so, will likely cut more than an ideal ratio for nutrition, where overconsumption of calories from fat is less likely than from other sources. That also doesn't consider the fact that the effects of excess sugars/carbs is worse than excess calories from fat.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        > will likely cut more than an ideal ratio for nutrition or likely will not > That also doesn't consider the fact that the effects of excess sugars/carbs is worse than excess calories from fat. this is offtopic, I never stated that excess cabrs/sugars better than fat
        tracker1 3y ago
        And my assertion is that most people aren't getting enough fat from a modern Western diet. That they shouldn't be afraid to eat it in natural proportions... You're the one asserting otherwise.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        > that most people aren't getting enough fat from a modern Western diet. yes, my observations are very opposite: fats are popular filling in western diet, you can check contents of muffins, croissant, sausages, not even talking about deep fried food, you will see more than half caloric intake is from fat.
        tracker1 3y ago
  - doublerebel 3y ago
    Fat is far more satiating which is why keto and paleo diets are relatively easy to adopt. For most people, it’s easier to control overeating within the same calorie amount by reducing carbs and increasing fats.

tracker1 3y ago

Here's the nutrition information for a 3-ounce serving of skinless chicken thigh, per the USDA: 9 grams fat. 20 g protein. About 1g fat per 2g protein in the chicken thigh. It's far higher than more recent recommendations, but those have been far too low in terms of natural fat intake. Pork butt is about 20g protein and 16g fat, which isn't in and of itself bad, as it can still be used for energy (like carbs can). If you look at a lot of western nutrition issues, most are centered around lack of fat soluble nutrients and hormone deficiencies, which are sourced significantly from fatty acids. Edit: there's also obesity, but fat is far more satiating than carbs and tend not to cause the insulin/carb cycling in terms of hunger response that you get from sugars and simpler carbs. In the end, one should not be specifically avoiding fats from animals in natural proportions. That isn't to say you cannot overeat meat, only that it's less likely than overeating from other sources.

riku_iki 3y ago
> 3-ounce serving of skinless chicken thigh skinless is obviously not popular cut. > tend not to cause the insulin/carb cycling in terms of hunger response they contribute to extra calories.
- tracker1 3y ago
  More than half the calories people take in is purely for energy. Excess is excess, it doesn't matter so much that it's fat or carbs. The difference being that if you're downing refined sugar or heavily processed foods there's other negative impacts that you don't see from excess fats. Unless you're suggesting that getting an extra ounce of natural animal fat is worse than eating something like a cereal bar with lots of refined chemical additives that aren't real food, including refined fats that don't even exist and would never be taken in in nature?
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    My point is very simple: person can over consume calories from animal fat the same way as from processed food or refined sugar. Fat is 2.5 more dense in calories, and switching to lean meat can cut calories intake significantly.
    - tracker1 3y ago
      And doing so, will likely cut more than an ideal ratio for nutrition, where overconsumption of calories from fat is less likely than from other sources. That also doesn't consider the fact that the effects of excess sugars/carbs is worse than excess calories from fat.
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        > will likely cut more than an ideal ratio for nutrition or likely will not > That also doesn't consider the fact that the effects of excess sugars/carbs is worse than excess calories from fat. this is offtopic, I never stated that excess cabrs/sugars better than fat
        tracker1 3y ago
        And my assertion is that most people aren't getting enough fat from a modern Western diet. That they shouldn't be afraid to eat it in natural proportions... You're the one asserting otherwise.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        > that most people aren't getting enough fat from a modern Western diet. yes, my observations are very opposite: fats are popular filling in western diet, you can check contents of muffins, croissant, sausages, not even talking about deep fried food, you will see more than half caloric intake is from fat.
        tracker1 3y ago
- doublerebel 3y ago
  Fat is far more satiating which is why keto and paleo diets are relatively easy to adopt. For most people, it’s easier to control overeating within the same calorie amount by reducing carbs and increasing fats.