Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Main Lowcarb Lobby
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2013, 03:46 AM   #1
Senior LCF Member
 
Jackie123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 368
Gallery: Jackie123
Stats: 242/181/135
WOE: NK Paleo
Start Date: September 2012
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.
Jackie123 is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 08-21-2013, 04:33 AM   #2
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 914
Gallery: Punkin
Stats: 160/95/100
WOE: NK or LC
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.
Punkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 04:37 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Dottie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: S.E. Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 72,042
Gallery: Dottie
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
Dottie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 04:58 AM   #4
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
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.
__________________
Keep calm and carry on.
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 05:02 AM   #5
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
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.
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 05:27 AM   #6
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 17,070
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
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.
clackley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 02:25 PM   #7
Senior LCF Member
 
Jackie123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 368
Gallery: Jackie123
Stats: 242/181/135
WOE: NK Paleo
Start Date: September 2012
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?
Jackie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 02:07 AM   #8
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie123 View Post
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.
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 05:34 AM   #9
Senior LCF Member
 
RebeccaLatham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 999
Gallery: RebeccaLatham
Stats: 43.6%/32.7%/30% Body Fat
WOE: Nutritional Ketosis
Start Date: March 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by emel View Post
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.

RebeccaLatham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 07:12 AM   #10
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie123 View Post
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 View Post
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.
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 07:28 AM   #11
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 17,070
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by emel View Post
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.
clackley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 07:47 AM   #12
Senior LCF Member
 
RebeccaLatham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 999
Gallery: RebeccaLatham
Stats: 43.6%/32.7%/30% Body Fat
WOE: Nutritional Ketosis
Start Date: March 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by emel View Post
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.
RebeccaLatham is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.