Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   Main Lowcarb Lobby (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/)
-   -   Does anyone know (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/810455-does-anyone-know.html)

Jackie123 08-21-2013 03:46 AM

Does anyone know
 
of any meats other than baby back ribs or chicken wings that have an equal amount of fat and protein? Or any that just plain have more fat? I've been looking and coming up zilch. I know liver, especially pate, has great ratios but it also has a few more carbs than I want to deal with right now.

Punkin 08-21-2013 04:33 AM

I don't know if this helps but I tend to eat more ground beef, sausages and salmon than other meats because they have a higher fat content.

Dottie 08-21-2013 04:37 AM

Ground beef. If you don't like the fat that cooks out of it, drain it and add some olive oil or butter after you brown it and then brown it some more so it absorbs what you added:)
Duck fat makes everything crispier, so it works well, too:)

emel 08-21-2013 04:58 AM

First, are you asking in terms of calories or in grams of fat and grams of protein?

Second, as Dottie says, you can manipulate the fat content by adding butter or oil after cooking. Besides, fat (and moisture) cooks out of the food, so your fat to protein ratio will be different for cooked than for raw, and it varies by cooking method--- if you stew it and eat the broth, you'll get all the macronutrients listed on the raw portion, but if you grill it or bake it (and don't eat the resulting pan grease), you'll have less fat than the raw portion denotes.

Best option, I think, is to figure out what your protein source provides after cooking, and then add fat. Another thing that works is to eat the protein as it is and include fat elsewhere in the meal, such as olive oil on a salad or butter on a cooked veggie.

emel 08-21-2013 05:02 AM

And then to answer the question about which meats are nice and fatty:

Prime Rib
Pork Butt
Dark meat chicken with skin
73% ground beef
braised short ribs or pork belly
bacon
hot dogs and a lot of sausages
oily fish packed in oil (mackerel, salmon, anchovies, etc). Tuna is NOT oily, so I don't recommend canned tuna on its own. But then again, you could make a nice tuna, egg, or chicken salad with plenty of nice homemade olive oil mayo and you'd get plenty of fat, deliciously.

clackley 08-21-2013 05:27 AM

Adding extra fat is the way to go. The simplest one that comes to mind is a pat of butter on top of a grilled steak.

Jackie123 08-21-2013 02:25 PM

Good points, everyone. I forgot to take cooking into account-but I always add fat back in, so I think my ratios are still all right. I'm getting away from calorie counting right now-I think I need to focus more on macros, and constantly counting calories might make me feel like I'm in control of my eating but it doesn't give me the detailed info about how I'm eating that I really need. I have been eating a lot of ribs and wing because, raw, they have an equal amount of protein to fat. I might just broaden my horizons a bit and throw some chicken thighs in the mix-and I also need to make tuna and/or chicken and egg salads. Variety is key, right?

emel 08-22-2013 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackie123 (Post 16568786)
Good points, everyone. I forgot to take cooking into account-but I always add fat back in, so I think my ratios are still all right. I'm getting away from calorie counting right now-I think I need to focus more on macros, and constantly counting calories might make me feel like I'm in control of my eating but it doesn't give me the detailed info about how I'm eating that I really need. I have been eating a lot of ribs and wing because, raw, they have an equal amount of protein to fat. I might just broaden my horizons a bit and throw some chicken thighs in the mix-and I also need to make tuna and/or chicken and egg salads. Variety is key, right?

Phinney and Volek would say that's backwards.
They say absolute numbers are more important and more informative than macros/ percentages. They say to eat the correct amount of protein, then eat the carbs you can handle, then eat to satisfaction from fat.

THey say macros can be misleading because, for example, 70/25/5 might be great at 1500 calories,but if it represents lower calories, there might not be enough protein eaten, and if it represents higher calories there might be too much carbs and too much protein. They say to always think of protein intake as an absolute value.

RebeccaLatham 08-22-2013 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emel (Post 16569438)
Phinney and Volek would say that's backwards.
They say absolute numbers are more important and more informative than macros/ percentages. They say to eat the correct amount of protein, then eat the carbs you can handle, then eat to satisfaction from fat.

THey say macros can be misleading because, for example, 70/25/5 might be great at 1500 calories,but if it represents lower calories, there might not be enough protein eaten, and if it represents higher calories there might be too much carbs and too much protein. They say to always think of protein intake as an absolute value.

I agree with what you are trying to say, but I think there is a misunderstanding on the use of the word "macro". Phinney and Volek would say that RATIOS and PERCENTAGES do not matter, not MACROS. Macros just means protein, fat and carbs.

So Phinney/Volek would say that the absolute value of each macro (protein, fat and carbs) is what matters, and the ratios or percentages of the macros does not matter.

:)

emel 08-22-2013 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackie123 (Post 16568786)
Good points, everyone. I forgot to take cooking into account-but I always add fat back in, so I think my ratios are still all right. I'm getting away from calorie counting right now-I think I need to focus more on macros, and constantly counting calories might make me feel like I'm in control of my eating but it doesn't give me the detailed info about how I'm eating that I really need. I have been eating a lot of ribs and wing because, raw, they have an equal amount of protein to fat. I might just broaden my horizons a bit and throw some chicken thighs in the mix-and I also need to make tuna and/or chicken and egg salads. Variety is key, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaLatham (Post 16569549)
I agree with what you are trying to say, but I think there is a misunderstanding on the use of the word "macro". Phinney and Volek would say that RATIOS and PERCENTAGES do not matter, not MACROS. Macros just means protein, fat and carbs.

So Phinney/Volek would say that the absolute value of each macro (protein, fat and carbs) is what matters, and the ratios or percentages of the macros does not matter.

:)

Although your definition is correct, many people here and elsewhere use the word 'macros' as a shortcut way of describing 'ratio or percentages of macronutrients'. I took the bolded part of OP's post to mean that she was using 'macros' to denote the ratio of macronutrients, as I know of no tracking software which provides absolute values of macronutrients without using calorie values. It's easy to say that we won't look at the calorie counts on such sites when logging in foods to find our gram counts, but it's hard to do---I always have to sneak a peek lol.

clackley 08-22-2013 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emel (Post 16569721)
Although your definition is correct, many people here and elsewhere use the word 'macros' as a shortcut way of describing 'ratio or percentages of macronutrients'. I took the bolded part of OP's post to mean that she was using 'macros' to denote the ratio of macronutrients, as I know of no tracking software which provides absolute values of macronutrients without using calorie values. It's easy to say that we won't look at the calorie counts on such sites when logging in foods to find our gram counts, but it's hard to do---I always have to sneak a peek lol.

I am not sure that is accurate. I have not read that. I think that the word 'macros' means the major foods ... nothing more. If one says your 'macros' are in line, that simply means that the right grams are being consumed for that person. Although I can see how it could easily be interpreted to mean ratios.

Language is difficult at the best of times but when we only have the written word without all the other cues that make up language, it makes it that much more difficult.

RebeccaLatham 08-22-2013 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emel (Post 16569721)
Although your definition is correct, many people here and elsewhere use the word 'macros' as a shortcut way of describing 'ratio or percentages of macronutrients'. I took the bolded part of OP's post to mean that she was using 'macros' to denote the ratio of macronutrients, as I know of no tracking software which provides absolute values of macronutrients without using calorie values. It's easy to say that we won't look at the calorie counts on such sites when logging in foods to find our gram counts, but it's hard to do---I always have to sneak a peek lol.

All of the tracking software that I have seen gives you the percentages and calories, but they also give the absolute amount of grams of each macro.

I always end up sneaking a peek at the calories, too, out of curiosity, but I don't GO by them. I go by the macros (grams of fat, protein and carbs). I also sneak a peek at the percentages, but I also don't GO by them. :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 PM.