Where is the Steak

Coileach dearg

I notice when people post their daily meal plans (whether bulking up or bulking down) there is no mention of big juicy steak anywhere in there.

There is nothing more wholesome or healthy than a big plate of pulsating t-bone after a tough workout. It is a full of protein and nutrition.

I will have a giant t-bone for dinner tonight. Does anybody else share in my love for the sacred steak?

tribulus

I love steak. I prefer it mostly well done with just a hint of pink at the centre.
Then some nice pepper or mushroom or redwine sauce, mmmmm

I do have it sometimes, not as much as I'd like to but then I'm not paying for the shopping

g'em

I only started eating steak about a year ago - sacriligeous, I know I still don't know all the different 'types' of steak, but it's great fun learning (eating)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

neuro-praxis

Huge portions of red meat are not good for you. It would be better to have a small to medium sized portion of steak once a week or so, and get your protein from a combination of meat and plant-based sources.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mr Magnolia

A big steak can take up to 8 hours to digest. Other than that I can''t see much wrong with them.

rubadub

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sirloin is €10 per kilo in tesco ATM. Though many will not touch supermarket meat...

armour87

I thought chicken had more protein than steak

then again, I think alot of things...

neuro-praxis

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am not decrying red meat. I love it and eat it myself on a weekly basis. A lean portion of steak should be about 4-6oz (100-150g). However the steak I ate in Eden last night would have been about 8-10oz (200-250g) which would be fairly average for a restaurant and that is far too large a portion. Eating large portions of red meat on a regular basis can contribute to heart disease, high cholesterol etc.

I am simply saying moderation is the key,that's all.

Also afaik chicken and beef have about the same protein levels, but chicken is much lower in saturated fat.

g'em

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I am simply saying moderation is the key,that's all.

Absolutely agree. But...

neuro-praxis wrote:

Eating large portions of red meat on a regular basis can contribute to heart disease, high cholesterol etc.

It's the proportion of saturated fat in your diet that matters. If you eat much more sat. fat. than unsat. fat then yes, it's a bad thing to eat too much meat. But if you eat lean red meat alongside plenty of nut and seed oils, oily fish and oily fruits then you can happily eat red meat in abundance without too much fear.

neuro-praxis

Then why are people with high cholesterol instructed to strictly avoid red meat?

EileenG

Because doctors have a huge blind spot when it comes to cholesterol. Most of what's in your blood stream was made by your liver, not derived from your food.

Saturated fat is not bad for you. In every study carried out on humans where the type of fat eaten was compared with the outcome, the group eating the saturated fats had the best health and the longest life. The group eating the polyunsaturates had the lowest cholesterol levels, but were more likely to have a heart attack or die.

Oh yeah, I eat eggs and steak every day, and have done for years, and my cholesterol is perfect. The only odd thing is the very high ratio of HDL to LDL. My doctor scrathes his head and tells me to keep doing whatever I'm doing.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mr Magnolia

Coileach dearg wrote: »

Where is the steak

In ma belly

*burps*

Nevyn

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Then why are people high cholesterol instructed to strictly avoid red meat?

Cos a lot of them eat it with butter sauce or cream bases sauses.

Huggles

Coileach dearg wrote: »

I notice when people post their daily meal plans (whether bulking up or bulking down) there is no mention of big juicy steak anywhere in there.

There is nothing more wholesome or healthy than a big plate of pulsating t-bone after a tough workout. It is a full of protein and nutrition.

I will have a giant t-bone for dinner tonight. Does anybody else share in my love for the sacred steak?

I loooooove my steak. I will only eat fillet tho so its only once a week because of the price of it. Sometimes I indulge myself and have it twice lol. Well done, with a sprinkle of basil, olive oil and chili. MMMMM!!

cozmik

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Also afaik chicken and beef have about the same protein levels, but chicken is much lower in saturated fat.

Free range chicken cuts are more nutritious than beef but the chicken that most people consume today (non-organic ) is just as bad as beef for cholesterol.

*a well-trimmed three-ounce sirloin steak has 185 calories and 75 milligrams of cholesterol; a three-ounce piece of boneless chicken breast has 140 calories and 72 milligrams of cholesterol.

* Department of Agriculture data

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1985/11/25/66658/index.htm

padser

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos a lot of them eat it with butter sauce or cream bases sauses.

That makes no sense.

If this was the case presumably they would be told to avoid the sauces, not the meats.

Lothaar

If you live anywhere near Dublin 15, go to Branagans Meats in Rosemount Business Park. It's a wholesale butchers, but they have a trade counter with the best value meat I have ever seen. It's all top quality too.

For about €10 you will get two massive fillet steaks, tastier than anything I've ever got in a supermarket or regular butchers. You can buy an entire fillet for about €60, which would do for about 15 big steaks.

tribulus

Lothaar wrote: »

If you live anywhere near Dublin 15, go to Branagans Meats in Rosemount Business Park. It's a wholesale butchers, but they have a trade counter with the best value meat I have ever seen. It's all top quality too.

For about €10 you will get two massive fillet steaks, tastier than anything I've ever got in a supermarket or regular butchers. You can buy an entire fillet for about €60, which would do for about 15 big steaks.

Thanks for that, I can get there alright, do they do any deals with chicken breasts or anything else?

Rhiannon14

*mops drool off keyboard*

Lothaar

Their chicken breasts are also the best value I've ever seen. It's €20 for 20 large breast - very large! You can get packs of five for a fiver, but the net weight is slightly less than one quarter of the pack of 20. Still great value. I get the packs of five because there's less packaging so I can freeze them. I roast five at a time and it does me for lunch for a few days.

All the meat is vacuum-packed too, so it keeps longer in the fridge.

It's not just steak and chicken... everything in there is excellent value. I can't recommend this place enough. It's one of those places that you feel obliged to tell everybody about.

Actually... you can read a bit about it here: http://www.youandyourmoney.ie/content.asp?contentid=768

Edwardius

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Eating large portions of red meat on a regular basis can contribute to heart disease, high cholesterol etc.

Eskimos might disagree with you on that one.

Mr Magnolia

I've never tried Eskimo.

Edwardius

EileenG wrote: »

Oh yeah, I eat eggs and steak every day, and have done for years, and my cholesterol is perfect. The only odd thing is the very high ratio of HDL to LDL. My doctor scrathes his head and tells me to keep doing whatever I'm doing.

You're either really sensitive to insulin or don't eat much in the way of high Glycemic-load carbs. or both (barry sears, michael eades would be the lads to ask about this, I ain't going to try to explain it off the top of me head because I'll get it wrong.)

EileenG

I've spent years eating the recommended high carb, low fat diet, and the end result was that I had all the classic signs of metabolic syndrome: inability to lose weight, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, pregnant belly even when I wasn't pregnant. I was definitely headed for type 2 diabetes. Oh yes, and I had gallstones.

When I cut out the processed carbs (I still eat massive amounts of veggies), the weight dropped off and my health improved dramatically. My gallstones have disappeared (the hospital keeps ringing me up asking if I want that operation yet, but I haven't had an attack since I started keto) and everything is on the good side of normal.

Low carb is not necessarily the ideal diet for everyone, but I do feel that most people would benefit from reducing processed carbs, and that meat and eggs have been unfairly demonised.

Edwardius

EileenG wrote: »

I've spent years eating the recommended high carb, low fat diet, and the end result was that I had all the classic signs of metabolic syndrome: inability to lose weight, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, pregnant belly even when I wasn't pregnant. I was definitely headed for type 2 diabetes. Oh yes, and I had gallstones.

When I cut out the processed carbs (I still eat massive amounts of veggies), the weight dropped off and my health improved dramatically. My gallstones have disappeared (the hospital keeps ringing me up asking if I want that operation yet, but I haven't had an attack since I started keto) and everything is on the good side of normal.

Low carb is not necessarily the ideal diet for everyone, but I do feel that most people would benefit from reducing processed carbs, and that meat and eggs have been unfairly demonised.

That makes sense then. I was pointed in the direction of this by a mate, you might like to give it a read. It seems to be one of the first to outline the principles on why this whole low-carb/adequate protein/adequate fat jazz works, with some light biochemistry thrown in.

EileenG

If anyone gives me an Amazon voucher for Christmas, I'm going to buy "Good Calories, bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. I believe it is a really well researched book on all this stuff, and why the food pyramid was the biggest fad diet in history.

rubadub

EileenG wrote: »

If anyone gives me an Amazon voucher for Christmas, I'm going to buy "Good Calories, bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. I believe it is a really well researched book on all this stuff, and why the food pyramid was the biggest fad diet in history.

Sounds interesting, especially as many people discrediting diets like atkins will point to the food pyramid as being set in stone and perfectly OK and "common sense", as though straying from it is like challenging the laws of thermodynamics or something

EileenG

They have just revised the food pyramid in America to include more protein and veg, but there is still more carbs than the experts originally recommended.

I've just read a piece by Damian Maher recommending a food pyramid with 4-8 servings of green veg a day, 2-3 servings of animal protein, 2-3 servings of healthy fats, a daily serving of raw nuts or seeds, 1-5 servings a week of whole grains or whole beans, 0-4 servings a day of raw fruit (less if diabetic etc), as little as possible refined grain, bread, cereal, popcorn, bagels, sweets, coffee and alcohol, and no soy ever.

Actually, the Atkins food pyramid makes a lot of sense too. It starts, as you would imagine, with lots of meat, veg and fats, and has smaller amounts of fruit, grains and very little bread or sugar. But it has another inverted pyramid linked to it, which shows the effect of exercise in your diet. In other words, if you do very little exercise, you eat the basic meat and veg diet. But if you work out hard, you add in extra carbs, not extra meat.

ApeXaviour

rubadub wrote: »

Sounds interesting, especially as many people discrediting diets like atkins will point to the food pyramid as being set in stone and perfectly OK and "common sense", as though straying from it is like challenging the laws of thermodynamics or something

I know I've said this before on this forum but it was created by the entirely benevolent and unbiased US Dept. of Agriculture.
You'll hear people say "Oh but didn't you know, Atkins was obese when he died?", it's untrue. The medical condition that killed him caused him to retain a lot of fluid. And like Eileen said, if you train intensely, it's sometimes recommended to increase your carb intake right after training. Replaces the glycogen in your muscles, inhibiting the release of cortisol, a catabolic hormone. For me that means a piece of fruit or two after the gym, kiwi or banana, both full of fructose.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

g'em

ApeXaviour wrote: »

And like Eileen said, if you train intensely, it's sometimes recommended to increase your carb intake right after training. Replaces the glycogen in your muscles, inhibiting the release of cortisol, a catabolic hormone. For me that means a piece of fruit or two after the gym, kiwi or banana, both full of fructose.

Not the best carb source post-workout tbh, it'll promote liver glycogen replenishment not muscle glycogen. Dextrose or maltodextrin are optimal, but bananas (being higher in glucose than fructose) or grapes for the same reason are ok.

And as daveirl said, Atkins and low-carbing diets are two very different forms of the same general idea.

ApeXaviour

g'em wrote: »

Not the best carb source post-workout tbh, it'll promote liver glycogen replenishment not muscle glycogen. Dextrose or maltodextrin are optimal, but bananas (being higher in glucose than fructose) or grapes for the same reason are ok.

Really? That's interesting, thanks for that clarification. More reading to add to the pile

g'em wrote: »

And as daveirl said, Atkins and low-carbing diets are two very different forms of the same general idea.

Oh absolutely, I never suggested they weren't... It does get my goat however when people make uninformed ridicule on the topic of low carb diets. Atkins bearing the major brunt of this.

EileenG

I've noticed that most of the people who jeer at Atkins have never read any of his books. They have a vague idea that it's the diet where you eat deep-fried cheese and bacon, and absolutely no vegetables or fruit at all.

Even in the first, very strict induction part of his diet, you are supposed to eat 20g of net carbs (that's total carbs minus fibre) a day. Ever eaten a chicken salad in McDonalds? Or even seen one? That salad has 2g of net carbs. So on the strictest part of Atkins, you should be eating the equivelent of TEN of those salads a day.

Edwardius

EileenG wrote: »

I've noticed that most of the people who jeer at Atkins have never read any of his books. They have a vague idea that it's the diet where you eat deep-fried cheese and bacon, and absolutely no vegetables or fruit at all.

Even in the first, very strict induction part of his diet, you are supposed to eat 20g of net carbs (that's total carbs minus fibre) a day. Ever eaten a chicken salad in McDonalds? Or even seen one? That salad has 2g of net carbs. So on the strictest part of Atkins, you should be eating the equivelent of TEN of those salads a day.

Aye, I read some stuff on Atkins a while back and the premise behind it is the same as the zone/paelio diets i.e. insulin control and all that good stuff. Most of the folk I hear talking about it seem to think you can eat as much fat as you want as long as you eat no carbs, which is balls. I think the stage 1 atkins has you eating minimal carbs but when it moves into maintainence it has you eating something along the lines of 50g/day (look it up, not sure about this) from low glycemic load foods. I suggest people read up on it in full before dissing it proper.

Tar.Aldarion

How reliable is this. Seems like a comprehensive study.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Anybody else read it?

ApeXaviour

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How reliable is this. Seems like a comprehensive study.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Anybody else read it?

I've heard of the project that that book stems from. And while interesting, what it has found is far from revolutionary.

That book, well I'm sceptical. I won't get it because it apparently presents its evidence very selectively, pulling wild conclusions from them. It's mostly correlation too, and clearly has the vegan bias in mind.

Tar.Aldarion

While reading it, not that I have a great memoryof it, ages ago... I don't recall any wild conclusions. It did have convincing reading about the causes of heart disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes etc.

I'm not sure how biased it is, why do you say that?
Are the authors vegans, and were so before the book? That doesn't make them biased but they might be, dunno. i'd be interested to hear. They very well might be.
To be fair to the book it does devote a large section to controversy about the book.

Edwardius

that website wrote:

“In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer...” He began to review other reports from around the world that reflected the findings of his research in the Philippines.

Wonder if they mention the sources of the animal proteins, the nature of the "plant-based foods" and how the diets of the different mucho-cancer/less-cancer people compared, what the sample size was, did he conduct the former study in a cancer ward? Are these studies published in internationally recognised journals? Most of the paleio stuff I've read (not all of it but enough that I don't want to read any more for a while) has extensive references to sports/nutritional journals and works exactly as is suggested in books (initial tiredness from missing the carbs, initial fluid loss followed by mucho energy/motivation as time goes on). It'd be good to see what somebody who read this book has to say. It'd be even better to hear how the guidelines/principles of this book impact on general wellbeing/athletic performance/weight loss (my order of importance, yours might be different) from someone who actually applied them strictly to their diet. Reading is all well and good and I suppose people like to feel informed so they can tell someone else they're wrong. However, debating these matters should take a back seat to comparing the efficacy of their application with first-hand evidence. If some quack tells you the grass is blue, you'd damn well go to the window to make sure it wasn't, so why trust some quack that tells you that eating x/y/z is bad/fattening. He might have an agenda and so might the guy in the other corner.

Re. protein: it's also very important to know what percentage of their respective diets came from protein as once it forms more than 40% of the diet the kidneys become very sad pandas (ref: the paleio diet for athletes, I think). Too much of anything is bad. Not turkey though!

Tar.Aldarion

I haad fake turkey, yum! :P

I must have a read of the book, I only had a quick browse before as it was not mine, it was some doctor's. Father of a friend. You know what to get me next christmas nutrition forum.