Grass Fed vs Conventional meat???
DaniKetoTaylor
Posts: 25 Member
i would like to know if I can still get weight loss results eating conventional meat. I really can't afford grassfed meat at this point. Can I stay in ketosis with conventional? What's the health differences between the two?
0
Replies
-
I don't give worry about that sort of minutia. It will drive u nuts. Eat the best quality food you can afford to and be chill. That's my opinion. Ketosis shouldn't be impacted in any significant way by the feed that the animal ate.0
-
It makes absolutely no difference. If it made a difference at all, which is unproven, it would be something minute... like going from 99.977% ideal to 99.982% ideal.
Eat what you enjoy. Eat what you can afford. I practically only eat beef. I could afford grass-fed, most of the time. But, I don't like the taste and it's too lean. So, I buy grain-finished. It's cheaper, which is awesome considering how much I eat, but it tastes better and I feel great eating it.0 -
Thanks guys this gives me piece of mind.0
-
That's a good point fit makes, I used to buy grass fed as much as I could, each time I cooked the heck out of it because it was so lean, it cooked up so much differently.0
-
I agree with what everyone else here has already said: buy and eat what you can afford. I can't afford to buy and eat grass-fed meat so I don't.0
-
My house is a house divided when it comes to meat. I actually prefer grain fed and my husband prefers grass fed, based on taste alone. I generally always purchase the grain fed (since I do most the grocery shopping) and have not noticed any issues with weight loss.0
-
Grain fed all the way, there's a reason we finish animals that way, it makes them taste good!0
-
I've only heard the term "grain finished" in reference to the way a grass fed animal is fed at the very end to quickly fatten them up right before slaughter. So I'm confused. Because then they are grass fed, but just grain finished...
And if they are fed grain their whole life then why even use the term grain finished because weren't they also grain started? Lol0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I've only heard the term "grain finished" in reference to the way a grass fed animal is fed at the very end to quickly fatten them up right before slaughter. So I'm confused. Because then they are grass fed, but just grain finished...
And if they are fed grain their whole life then why even use the term grain finished because weren't they also grain started? Lol
I think grain finished is only used for those that were grass fed. I don't think grain fed beef is labelled like that.0 -
OK, let's clear up some misconception. No beef is entirely grain fed.
All beef is primarily grass-fed beef for the vast majority of their life. What you see at the store is more appropriately called "grass finished" beef. This is the game of picking the term you want based on the reaction you want. And, yes, I play this game myself.
"Feed Lot Animals" == Eww, that sounds horrible.
"Grain Finished" == Hmm, they're only feeding them grain at the end of their life to increase their fat and flavor.
It is prohibitively expensive to feed cows exclusively on grain. They also don't do very well on grain, it's one of the down-sides of grain finishing cattle. They aren't meant to eat large amounts of grain as their primary energy source. Their reaction to the feed is to get fat, which is similar to our rating.
There's other confusing stuff about this. Grain finishing isn't always healthy, at least not at massive feed lots, but it's only for the short period of time before they are slaughtered. Of course, beef can be grain finished outside of feed lots. But, the cheapest beef almost certainly spent some time in a lot.0 -
It's confusing because one thing I remember reading that was recommending grass fed also said try to get grass finished also.
The thought then is that there are two types of grass fed animals:
1. Grass fed and finished.
2. Grass fed but grain finished.
If the purpose of grain feeding is to fatten the animal, then wouldn't the fat be less nutritious then? Being that it all came about from the grain diet? That's why the recommendation I read suggested not to buy grain finished if you could help it. It went on to say if you had to then don't eat the fat.
I don't buy it, and I'm not big on the chewy fat of meat anyway. I know. I know. Just wondering what your thoughts are on the nutrient content of the fat from the bulking using grain as opposed to the fat on lesser fattened, no grain animal. But also, isn't this exactly why we do buy grass fed butter? Because it's more nutrient dense from the natural grassy diet?
These things cannot equate in my head as being important when it comes to butter fat but not important for the animal body fat.0 -
The fat profile is different, but not significantly so. This is especially the case if you're not consuming harmful plant oils (which are inflammatory). If the fat is less nutritious, which is a big if, it is still nutritious enough that make it worth eating.
Needless to say, I disagree with those who would say to not eat the fat from those animals. But, you have summarized their logic well.0 -
What about the idea that grass fed butter is preferred then? It even tastes better.
I am just having trouble reconciling these two things that seem opposing.0 -
I don't agree that it is better. If you like it more, have it. It has slightly more vitamin K, but you get plenty from normal butter.0
-
Many here know that I choose to obtain 95% of my protein from sustainable organic farmers who produce completely grass fed beef, pastured pork, chicken, lamb, turkey, duck and geese, and free run eggs. I do this for many reasons, but the first reason I sought them out was because I believe that we can change the composition of our bodies and our health in general, by choosing to eat animals that have grown their own flesh in a way that is healthy to their development. From what I understand, conventionally produced grain fed beef is higher in Omega 6 fatty acids, and my grass fed beef has a higher likelihood of being higher in Omega 3. The theory was that one would stand a greater chance of losing weight if grass fed beef was eaten. Bear in mind that when I first embarked on this way of purchasing food, I was 100 pounds heavier and attempting a mostly primal eating plan. A typical SAD diet is supposedly higher in Omega 6 and the reasoning behind choosing food sources higher in Omega 3, or more accurately meat with a more natural ratio of 6 to 3, would be to correct this balance of fatty acids ingested in my body, in order to lose weight and reach optimal health. I have no idea how necessary this would be while eating LCHF, since many of the typical culprits to poor health are not eaten with this woe.
That being said, I'd still choose to be a meat eater even if I had no access to my grass fed meat. I know that Mark Sisson had a post on his site which analyzed how harmful it would be to consume conventionally raised meat if the pastured kind was not available. The results showed that beef is the best bet from conventional sources, and chicken was the worst in terms of quality and ethical farming practices. I don't want to eat conventionally raised chicken, so if money were an issue, and don't get me wrong, I watch my spending, I would buy conventional beef but choose pastured chickens, not sure about the pork, but I know I can't buy pork like mine in the store, so would likely but pastured pork as well. My beef costs the most. So I would say that conventionally raised beef would not harm you, but I've heard that toxins are stored in the animals' fat, so I'd be leary about eating it, however many here do eat it and thrive.0 -
This is a research paper comparing the Omega-3 content (and other stuff) between the two types of beef.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219103
While there is a higher percentage of the fat content that is Omega-3, the important sentence is the last one:It is also noted that grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions.
Sure, there's less omega-3 by percent, but there's also more fat overall. And, LCHF dieters will be eating those very same "higher fat" portions they mention. We avoid the lean cuts.
As for the omega-6 being too high, well that is in the SAD diet (like you point out). Look at this list of sources for omega-6 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid ). See a trend? It's primarily plant oils, grains, and nuts. All of which are sub-optimal and generally shunned in preference to animal based fats.
Since I eat virtually no plant products, including plant oils, I am not worried about the slight increase in omega-6 due to grain fattening.
My basic theory is that it's the absolutely insane imbalance towards omega-6s that comes from eating those sorts of foods, and it's not that you absolutely need to keep them perfectly balanced. Removing the sources which overwhelm the system is sufficient.
As for it being required for weight loss, that's conclusively false. Far too many people have lost weight, easily, eating the grain finished beef. Is it better for weight loss? That might be up for debate, but I highly doubt it since the daily intake of omega fats is relatively low in regards to total calories and total fat consumption.0 -
Thanks @FIT_Goat you make some good points and I was already speculating that since I no longer eat foods heavy in Omega 6, I should have less of a risk even without my beloved grass fed and pastured meat.
But I love it !!!! It is so yummy and I love that I can get lots of free extras. My meat also doesn't come trimmed like store bought meat does. I did a roast pork a couple of weeks ago that had a good inch of fat around it, as well as the rind. I sometimes trim more and sometimes leave it on. The steaks are amazing and marbled. Even the leaner cuts like the stew beef is easy to add extra fat to when cooking. And I can get beef and pork fat to make tallow and lard for free.
So if health benefits may be negligible, I still prefer my arrangement. I email my farmers with special orders and they bring it the next time I see them. I love shopping this way. I'd still never buy conventionally raised chicken eww.0 -
In the end, grass finished is probably better for the planet and has other advantages. The main point, that I wish to make, is that people shouldn't feel bad if that it all they can reasonably afford. The grain-finished is tasty (although some people like grass just as well or more), cheap, and an incredibly healthy option all by itself.
I think we all could do better to eat more goat, sheep, deer, and other smaller animals than we currently do. Most dislike them because of their taste, sadly.
Chicken and pork are my "sometimes" meats mostly because of the conditions of the animals. Hold over from my old vegetarian days. I do eat conventional eggs, but I recognize that it isn't good. I haven't been eating many eggs the last 6 months or so. I also eat bacon. Still not huge amounts like the eggs.
While I am not sure the meat from chicken and pork has anything wrong with it, I do know I feel better when I center my diet around cattle and sheep.0 -
-
Well, you've helped me get over the idea that I could be doing something better by buying the more expensive grass finished. I never had because of the cost, but I did kinda feel like it was too bad that I couldn't afford that.
So, now I'm over that with this new understanding. I do like the taste of the grass fed butter and that I can afford so that's good enough.
I recently bought 3 new kinds of butter to try and this info was inside the lable of one of them.
So it definitely makes sense what you're saying about ratio. We aren't typically getting all the Omega 6 so it's not such an issue.
0 -
Look at this list of sources for omega-6 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid ). See a trend? It's primarily plant oils, grains, and nuts. All of which are sub-optimal and generally shunned in preference to animal based fats.
Interestingly beef and pork are not included in that list, whereas poultry, egg and avacado are. So beef and pork are better in terms of omega 60 -
vikashsinha wrote: »
I forget what movie I saw this in, might have been "Fat Head" or "The Perfect Human Diet" but someone once went and got information about the nutrition program used to fatten up animals and found that it was nearly a perfect match for a "healthy diet" according to the government.
It's like if you go to the mayo clinic's website (could have been the AHA... I can't find it on mayo's site anymore) and read their information on high triglycerides. They point out that one cause is a diet high in carbs (60% carbs). Then, two paragraphs later, they are talking about what to do if you want to lower your triglycerides. They tell you to eat a "heart healthy diet", which they link to (but don't define there). If you follow the link, you get some sample meal plans and such. Run the numbers on those plans (I did) and you find they have a macronutrient breakdown of 60% carbs! So, 60% carbs causes AND is the cure for high trigs.
0 -
its a pity that most people who dont have time to dig literature, follow these guidelines set by govt which is heavily influenced by commercial interests0
-
vikashsinha wrote: »
I forget what movie I saw this in, might have been "Fat Head" or "The Perfect Human Diet" but someone once went and got information about the nutrition program used to fatten up animals and found that it was nearly a perfect match for a "healthy diet" according to the government.
It's like if you go to the mayo clinic's website (could have been the AHA... I can't find it on mayo's site anymore) and read their information on high triglycerides. They point out that one cause is a diet high in carbs (60% carbs). Then, two paragraphs later, they are talking about what to do if you want to lower your triglycerides. They tell you to eat a "heart healthy diet", which they link to (but don't define there). If you follow the link, you get some sample meal plans and such. Run the numbers on those plans (I did) and you find they have a macronutrient breakdown of 60% carbs! So, 60% carbs causes AND is the cure for high trigs.
Pretty sure it's the Perfect Human Diet. I recall him interviewing the farmers association and recommendation committee for that.
And the carb ratio reminds me of the fiber thing -- cause and cure! It's a miracle!
OP -- there are a number of reasons to choose (or not) grass fed/pastured meat. Weight loss isn't one of them. It really doesn't matter on that front.
Some do claim/believe that it's healthier to eat pastured. That's rather debated of cattle, though probably holds more water for pork and chicken, since they are omnivores and the feedlot system deviates more from their natural diet and life than it does for beef (they're farther up the food chain and are subject to similar issues with toxin bio-accumulation that occur with fish as you move up the chain).
I'm personally a fan of buying from small, local farmers for a variety of reasons (many of which @Kitnthecat already mentioned), but if you can only afford conventional meat from the grocery store, then that's okay. Start with that and if you want to make changes, start with the higher risk things -- eggs, chicken, and pork -- then go to the beef if you so choose, as you can fit them into your budget.0 -
The difference in the pork is utterly amazing. Rich and fatty, so tasty, darker in colour than conventional pork. Best of all, the animals are not squished together in a barn with not enough room to move around, sitting in their own *kitten*. They are frolicking in the woods, foraging, and are fed organic hemp husks and other yummy things. Plus I get sausages made with no fillers. Yum.0
-
Kitnthecat wrote: »The difference in the pork is utterly amazing. Rich and fatty, so tasty, darker in colour than conventional pork. Best of all, the animals are not squished together in a barn with not enough room to move around, sitting in their own *kitten*. They are frolicking in the woods, foraging, and are fed organic hemp husks and other yummy things. Plus I get sausages made with no fillers. Yum.
what do you look for when you buy pork in farmers market?0 -
@vikashsinha , I buy my pork directly from my farmers, half of a large heritage pig per year, in 4 deliveries per year, which gives me and my two daughters enough pork for a whole year.
But if I had to look for an alternate source of pork, I would choose heritage pork, look for Berkshire or Mulefoot breeds. There may be other breeds as well, I am not sure. Our pigs have black skin. I favour organic farming methods, where the animals have not been mistreated or fed chemicals of any kind. For instance, my farmers feed their pigs organic grains that haven't been exposed to pesticides, and use no chemicals on their land. Our pigs forage in the forest and have family structure. They live outside all year round, no barns, even though we live in Manitoba Canada. They have a thick layer of fat to keep them warm. I like that they have a good quality of life. This might not be important to others.
But what is really great about this meat is that it is fattier and juicier than conventional white-looking pork. So if I had to buy from a farmer's market, I would look for organic heritage pork. You might start there, and if possible, ask the farmers more questions. This pork is more expensive than regular pork, but it tastes twice as good.0
