Quick question regarding Protein/Fat ratio

[technosmith]

Hi,

If you wanted to eat say 200g of fat in a meal, would you choose for example a piece of meat weighing say 600g that approximately looked 1/3 fat?

Sorry if this is possibly the most dull/simple question of all time!

Phil

[Ioanna]

lol, impossible!

muscle is more dense/weights more than fat. however, i've heard people say that a piece of meat about 1/3 fat is a good percentage to aim for.

[Hannibal]

lol, impossible!

It's defnitely possible
Couple of weeks ago I had veeeery fatty parts of a wild boar meat - over 1/2 fat by weight, for sure

[technosmith]

So what ratio do most tend to aim for? 1/4 fat, 1/5 fat?

[TylerDurden]

So what ratio do most tend to aim for? 1/4 fat, 1/5 fat?

Raw Omnivores are less fussed re fat-ratios. It's only the RZCers who need to worry re this issue at all.

[KD]

Raw Omnivores are less fussed re fat-ratios. It's only the RZCers who need to worry re this issue at all.

While the first part could possibly be correct, you've said this or similar before and its never made sense to me. The second part is definitely false. Any person who restricts carbs is going to have to be conscious about their fat and probably protein intakes. This would apply the same to a 'vegetarian' low carber as to a zero carber, as if there is marginal intake of carbohydrates, inevitably one would have to get energy from fats. Only if someone is omnivorous but eating far more than the daily requirement of glucose or whatever other accepted ranges (say <100g - I do not know) then would it perhaps not matter, as they would be burning carbs regardless of quantities of fat intake.

While I don't support in contrast micromanaging intake, I would say this issue matters for virtually everyone on this site who isn't eating a large quantity of carbs daily - particularly if one wants to venture in to how protein might effect this as well.

[TylerDurden]

Well, I can only go by my own past experience, which was that fat didn't really seem to be needed when on VLC diets. I suppose it might possibly be an issue if one is hardly eating any raw carbs at all(sort of in the 20g of raw carbs a day-rate on average, or less), but anything more than that in the way of carbs should be fine.

[KD]

if someone is not adjusted to burning fats for fuel or plans to, and is even remotely active, its going to make little sense to limit carbs in the first place because once that limited amount is used up they are going to either 'hit the wall' or be involved in some terribly inefficient process.

I can only imagine this is why most people who do poorly on LC do so. By that logic, pretty much everyone that is limiting carbs at all, and not just zero carbers, should be paying attention to how much fat/protein. Whether there is some magical ratio that need to be followed strictly and will make someone healthy I do not know. Inevitably if the diet is low in both fats and carbs by gram its approaching quite high levels of protein or is drastically low in calories. Even if most muscle meat has some fats, and even if very small amounts of fruits are enough to ward off rabbit starvation or whatever, with restricted or just absent carbs AND fat there won't be usable energy for much activity or healing IMO.

[TylerDurden]

No doubt.

What I was trying to say, though, was that a raw omnivore doesn't need to go overboard getting large amounts of relatively pure raw fats like raw suet/marrow etc. like RZers do. Most muscle-meat has some raw fats, even so-called lean venison. If one is also eating a few raw carbs as well, then one should be fine.

Not at all sure re extreme physical performance, though.  When doing really heavy exercise in the past, I happened, at those times,  to be eating some raw carbs(something like usually 10 percent of diet?), though I didn't always eat lots of extra pure raw fats at the same time. if I  lowered carb-intake to near-zero carbs and only ate raw lean muscle-meats, I doubt I would do well at all  re sport. At least, I don't seem to do well at all  re burning raw fats.

[KD]

What I was trying to say, though, was that a raw omnivore doesn't need to go overboard getting large amounts of relatively pure raw fats like raw suet/marrow etc. like RZers do. Most muscle-meat has some raw fats, even so-called lean venison. If one is also eating a few raw carbs as well, then one should be fine.

I think its more your terminology than the essence of what you are saying that I object to. I mean if you replace omnivore with 'high carb' and zero carb with 'carb restricted' - then it becomes accurate to me but I don't think its a 'zerb carb' exclusive issue in any way. This is an issue for Atkins dieters to Primal Blueprint dieters to raw VLC. There are certainly no shortage of peoples that have eaten high carb diets that include animal foods, but not much in the lines of lean meats with both restricted carbs and fats, yet some people actually will eat this way particularly in those cooked permutations. I think basically anyone on a raw or cooked diet who is not eating a tremendous amount of carbs is going to have to think about this issue somewhat, not just 'zero carbers'.

I'm not sure ultimately what is the best for performance or strength for humans, I would assume it would contain some carbs, but basically I was just saying if someone was already burning carbs (pretty much everyone) it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to restrict them drastically anyway - even with whatever literature on the harmful nature of carbs or whatever - because its inefficient and possibly unhealthy to make up this deficit with protein. Being more athletic/extreme only exacerbates the need for more carbs but even for the inactive person there will be a certain point where carbs become too low for health/basic needs  if they do not have a healthy fat source.

[miles]

There is not just the lean meat which has virtually no fat, and then the meat which has like 30%+ of fat... People are comparing eating 'lean meat', i.e. meat with no fat whatsoever, to meat with massive amounts of fat. There is all the range in between... Meat with small amounts of fat is fine. And someone who doesn't consume vegetation is in more need of the meat part, not of the fat part... The meat is the watery part, like fruits. Rabbit starvation doesn't occur because people need to eat enough fat to run off of... It occurs because people need to eat enough fat to BUILD with... It is the meat which provides the energy, the water, along with material for building. The dietary fat is important for building, but you don't need much for that. Pure fat is very hard to process in large quantities, it has to sit around for ages..

And 'everyone' is burning fats and carbs together, not just one or the other.. People who eat a grain-based low-fat diet are running off of both fat and carbohydrates.

[KD]

And 'everyone' is burning fats and carbs together, not just one or the other..

As usual, no. and most of this stuff you just plain made up. The science on this is so simple and 100 % undisputed even if the precise range is not. the body does not break down fats for fuel except in the regular absence of sugar. the reason why 30% isn't enough fat when its perfectly reasonable amount for the average unhealthy person is precisely if a diet is low in carbs for the reasons already explained.

take a person who is adjusted to eating fats for fuel and put them on a 80% fat diet with no more than 5% carbs (if they arn't already) and see how their energy compares to a person on a standard or 100% raw hi carb diet given that diet change. Take the same original person and put them on a 90 % carb diet with 5 % fat and protein and see what happens. Splitting it 50/45 or 30/65 will not make them burn fats and carbs together or make much of a difference re energy unless they 'adjust' back.

on top of this, fats are just plain essential for health, whereas other than a few nutrients, carbs and excess protein are not. So more than whether one is low or high carb, figuring in a large portion of animal fat into ones diet in comparison to protein or carbs is going to have advantages whereas taking in hundreds of grams of protein can be extremely unhealthy.

[miles]

the body does not break down fats for fuel except in the regular absence of sugar.

What? ? ? ?

[Ioanna]

It's defnitely possible
Couple of weeks ago I had veeeery fatty parts of a wild boar meat - over 1/2 fat by weight, for sure

oh, no.. i was responding to this part...

Sorry if this is possibly the most dull/simple question of all time!

[KD]

the body does not break down fats for fuel except in the regular absence of sugar.

sigh..I'm talking about as a primary energy source and also in a practical sense. please read any article from anyone on nutrition from low fat to low carb, you'll find the same thing just a difference on which is most efficient or healthy. people eating fat on a high carb diet of course will feel sluggish from fats, and people on a fat burning diet will break that ability with excess carbs, so there is no mixing of carbs/fats for fuel. It is indeed one or the other. This doesn't mean there is no calories processed from the fat on a mixed diet or whatever, it just means they burn glucose and not ketones no matter how much fat is taken in.

[miles]

The glucose, whether from protein or carbohydrates, is always being supplemented with the burning of body-fat. The body is burning stored Glycogen, and stored Triglycerides... And then if you don't have enough glycogen, your body will start producing ketones from the fat as well. But it was burning the fat before that, just not utilising all of it.

[KD]

as the kids say : LOL

ok miles, write a paper and rock the LC world.

What a bunch of morons they are trying to burn fats when they are doing it all the time anyway.

[miles]

I am not aware that what I wrote of is obscure, and thus I am fairly confused.

[KD]

What you wrote basically has nothing to do with the issue. all you are saying is that people ingest fat and that it gets processed. This has nothing to do with the crux of the issue which is whether one uses fats or sugars for their primary fuel source. Saying people are always burning both - implying that it does not matter what ones fat level is - hence your other arguments - is wrong.

You are basically saying still that people eat some proportion of fats carbs and protein and this all gets processed as fuel. OK. Your statement does not prove that someone that has enough glycogen at all times is burning fats as a primary over sugar, nor does it say that someone that is adapted to fats is burning sugar and therefore both. So basically - not everyone is burning fat and sugar, and not everything is the same. for people that want to be burning fat, it matters, period. If people arn't consuming either plant carbs or fats from animal or plant sources, they are going to be in the shit eventually. period.

People would not restrict carbs based on their harmful reputation alone unless there was some advantage to being able to achieve energy through fat. Prior to this conversion - which is extremely and surprisingly lengthy - precisely because these process do not exist simultaneously - people cannot get this energy from fat, so again you are wasting time with semantics to engage your high muscle meat diet theory of which no one agrees. Even the most omnivorous or non-raw-specialist or non specialist will agree that sans plants, one need to derive energy from fats not muscle meat. Its possible to have a diet that has negligible meat that is healthy and low carb but not one that has negligible fat which also I think most people agree upon. What I was trying to say earlier is that this applies to all low carbers, and not just zero carbers because the issue is not rabbit starvation but just general health and regular old science.


please find ONE source or even other individual who will agree with anything here

There is not just the lean meat which has virtually no fat, and then the meat which has like 30%+ of fat... People are comparing eating 'lean meat', i.e. meat with no fat whatsoever, to meat with massive amounts of fat. There is all the range in between... Meat with small amounts of fat is fine. And someone who doesn't consume vegetation is in more need of the meat part, not of the fat part... The meat is the watery part, like fruits. Rabbit starvation doesn't occur because people need to eat enough fat to run off of... It occurs because people need to eat enough fat to BUILD with... It is the meat which provides the energy, the water, along with material for building. The dietary fat is important for building, but you don't need much for that. Pure fat is very hard to process in large quantities, it has to sit around for ages..

And 'everyone' is burning fats and carbs together, not just one or the other.. People who eat a grain-based low-fat diet are running off of both fat and carbohydrates.

[TylerDurden]

Like I said before, though, given mine and others' experiences re omnivores, it is perfectly possible to be healthy while eating just raw relatively lean lean muscle-meats (and non-fatty raw organ-meats?) along with a few carbs. It is possible(?) that one might need to load oneself with large amounts of extra raw carbs or raw fats if one is planning to do really heavy exercise long-term, but otherwise they are not needed. The point being that only RZCers need to be fanatical about obtaining large amounts of raw fats like raw suet all the time. The only cases where non-RZC diets caused real problems was those liquid protein diets, where large amounts of such protein was ingested each day.

[KD]

Like I said before, though, given mine and others' experiences re omnivores, it is perfectly possible to be healthy while eating just raw relatively lean lean muscle-meats (and non-fatty raw organ-meats?) along with a few carbs. It is possible(?) that one might need to load oneself with large amounts of extra raw carbs or raw fats if one is planning to do really heavy exercise long-term, but otherwise they are not needed. The point being that only RZCers need to be fanatical about obtaining large amounts of raw fats like raw suet all the time. The only cases where non-RZC diets caused real problems was those liquid protein diets, where large amounts of such protein was ingested each day.

yeah, and again, while I'm not going to project my beliefs on what is healthy in this situation (including some amounts of carbs and fats liberally) since no one really knows, I'm only to say its going to be similar processing of energy to a high carb diet (minus the high carbs and with additional protein). My personal belief is with non-high fat diets, it makes little sense generally to limit particularly non high fructose carbs, because you are always going to be engaging in some protein/energy issues, even with slight activity that will be less efficient to just eating carbs. Take a Kitivan and see what a major drop in their starch and increase the same percentage of protein would do.

You are still unfairily linking this as a RZC issue when I would wager we could poll this board alone and the number of 'omniverous' people consdering this issue or hording suet or whatever would way outnumber RZCers. Particulary when there seems to be RZCers that periodicity pop up who do in fact just eat muscle meats - more or less, of which I don't think you support. There is virtually no difference between Primal Blueprint and Atkins other than perhaps some emphasis on food quality and the role of fat and not protein for energy - and this alone even minus raw makes a huge difference. No one really knows whether ZC, VLC, Or LC are the healthiest approach, but emphasizing fats over protein is going to be the conscious choice in all these approaches, not just the ones that exclude plants entirely.
 

[Josh]

Miles, I have to agree it's not the first time you've come up with some very unorthodox ideas.

It is the meat which provides the energy, the water, along with material for building. The dietary fat is important for building, but you don't need much for that.

Maybe there is an element of truth in what you say somehow, but it's the first time I've heard of it, so could you say where the idea comes from.

Are you saying that people don't break down fat into ketones for energy? - this is the standard accepted view of low carb diets.

[TylerDurden]

Well, the whole excessive fascination towards raw fats comes from people reading Stefansson and wrongly assuming that rabbit-starvation is also an issue for non-RZCers, which is why some go in for extra raw fats. I am merely stating from my own experience that such an excessive zeal for raw fats is unnecessary, that's all.

The other point I was making was that since muscle-meats invariably contain some raw fats, that therefore adding in extra raw fats in the form of raw suet/marrow etc. was equally unnecessary.

[KD]

Tyler, your constant pointing to raw zero carb, Stefansson, and rabbit starvation in regard to the importance of eating fats is just not accurate. Most people do not care about these issues and some are even totally unaware of these issues and still choose to eat fats as a large percentage of their diet. There are people that do not even consume *any* or much animal protein that eat a high fat diet ala Aajonus or Weston Price influence which is entirely omnivorous. There are raw vegans who consume no animal protein and have not heard of Stefanson and are at no risk of rabbit starvation and clearly are not raw zero carb - that base their diet almost entirely around dietary fat. I never heard of any of the above three things prior to understanding that I needed to get off a carb based diet so thus has nothing to do with this decision. The fact that someone can survive on any kind of program is not really relevant to the fact that this issue does not have anything to do with  raw zero carb, Stefansson, and rabbit starvation specifically. Its only 'unnecessary' to have this zeal you speak of if people are taking in a moderate to large portion of dietary carbs,and even then one could easily argue around the term 'unnecessary'.

[TylerDurden]

Whenever I have heard people clamouring for more raw fats, almost always talk of Stefansson and rabbit-starvation came up. Weston-Price did focus on fats, but also proteins and carbs, as his diet was pretty varied.

As for raw vegans,  most raw vegan sites are heavily anti-protein and/or anti-fat but not anti-carbs. I even recall Doug Graham's 80/10/10 diet  which is a very fat-hating diet indeed. Perhaps some very unusual raw vegans focus mostly or wholly on fats(avocado dets?!!) but that's all.


But that's all by the by:- one gets enough raw fat (or raw carbs) just from eating a standard omnivorous rawpaleodiet for one not to have to care about rabbit-starvation, and one doesn't need to add loads of extra raw suet or other pure raw fat for general health.  For olympic sports-performance maybe, but that's an entirely separate issue. That is, I did fine long-term when I stayed low-carb and just ate raw muscle-meats. The way I see it, even raw lean muscle-meats contain a certain amount of raw fats, and even low-carb means a diet of 5 or 10 percent carbs, so a combination of both means one does not have to worry.

Now obviously, if one allows 1 of the 3 types to become truly excessive, then one gets into trouble. My decidedly negative experiences re raw vegan/fruitarian diets and raw, zero-carb diets and past readings about the ill-health caused by liquid protein diets rather point to that.