I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
β-carotene and retinol contents in the meat of herbivorous ungulates
Came across this study from a video I was watching about the Carnivore diet and it appears there is Vitamin A in the muscle meat of Bison and Cattle. I used the USDA Nutrient website to check how much Vitamin A is in beef prior to reading this study and it lists zero, however I am not sure how they actually derived those values. I know it also says meat has zero vitamin C which is not true.
- Study is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785134/
- This is a graph someone made supposedly showing a breakdown of the study and how much Vitamin A you get per pound of muscle meat: https://www.facebook.com/LoneStarKetogirl/photos/a.262620811036710/477575499541239/?type=3&theater
The graph states 1 pound of muscle meat is enough to meat the RDA requirements. If true it seems anyone eating at least enough meat to ward off protein deficiency is going to be ingesting plenty of vitamin A along with it. Looking at the numbers in the study it shows grain fed cattle having the lowest amount of Vitamin A in their meat which is interesting as most people prefer the taste of grain fed cattle over grass. I think grass fed is only eaten because people think it's healthier (and it may be), but not because it's more enjoyable. Maybe there is something to be said about about following our bodies intuition and eating what we like, but in that case all I'd eat is Pizza and Ice Cream 😀
There’s a few important factors to consider when interpreting that report.
Firstly, buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is NOT bison; North American Bison is a completely different animal from a water buffalo.
Next, the typical age of cattle in North American is about 1-2.5 yrs at time of slaughter, whereas in this study it’s:
Samples from cattle (Bos taurus) and buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) between the ages of two and five years (3.67 ± 0.58 years old) and (3.17 ± 0.78 years old) for both animal species, respectively,
So, their study animals have had a lot more time to accumulate retinol within their muscle. Thus, the numbers reported in the FDA database are probably closer to reality for the North American grown muscle meats.
RE: Although yellow carcass fat consumption is discouraged in many countries around the world, it is also associated with a healthier fatty acid profile and a higher antioxidant content
An interesting tidbit of info is that what surgeons call “brown fat” in humans, it too is actually yellow in colour.
Quote from ggenereux on September 23, 2020, 10:38 amThere’s a few important factors to consider when interpreting that report.
Firstly, buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is NOT bison; North American Bison is a completely different animal from a water buffalo.
Next, the typical age of cattle in North American is about 1-2.5 yrs at time of slaughter, whereas in this study it’s:
Samples from cattle (Bos taurus) and buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) between the ages of two and five years (3.67 ± 0.58 years old) and (3.17 ± 0.78 years old) for both animal species, respectively,
So, their study animals have had a lot more time to accumulate retinol within their muscle. Thus, the numbers reported in the FDA database are probably closer to reality for the North American grown muscle meats.
RE: Although yellow carcass fat consumption is discouraged in many countries around the world, it is also associated with a healthier fatty acid profile and a higher antioxidant content
An interesting tidbit of info is that what surgeons call “brown fat” in humans, it too is actually yellow in colour.
Hi Grant,
Good points about the age of the animal and the yellow carcass consumption. I didn't notice that. With regards to Bison I don't really have access to it so I only eat grain fed cattle meat and it was nice to see it's retinol content was lower. However even with it being the lowest and with our cattle being slaughtered younger it would still seem likely they'd have maybe half the vitamin A content of the older ones. So instead of the 900 mcg per pound in the chart maybe 450? Ultimately not eating any meat isn't an option though so it's kind of irrelevant I guess.
two things pop into my mind: 1. I would guess but don't know, is it in the fat? so that leaner meats would have less? 2. I'm starting to wonder why we believe nutrition charts, LOL?