I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Can Choline accelerate Vit A Detoxification?
680 grams of beef. I know some people eat that much but I could only eat about 400 grams a day (under a pound). I was getting 550 mgs of choline and I still needed more whether it was the detox or I was low at the start I'm not sure. Only when I got 900 mgs did I start feeling better and healing digestion. Much easier to eat eggs to get the choline up for those that need more.
@jessica2
According to Cronometer, ground pork and ground beef both have almost the exact same amount of choline. There's going to be variation in the numbers based on the cuts you look at (Andrew's list shows a beef round steak having way more than other cuts for some reason).
People might be surprised how much meat they could eat if they stopped eating carbs, particularly fibrous ones...
@jessica2
I understand everyone has their own circumstances and priorities. My point was simply that people might not realize they are physically capable of eating (and inclined to eat) more meat if they were to remove what I consider to be "fillers" in their diet.
Pork is probably cheaper because pigs are living trash cans...they can convert almost any low-fiber waste material into meat and fat. They also wind up storing a bunch of undesirable compounds from that "food trash" in their fat, not exactly ideal to be eating that stuff. Pork is not inherently bad, but just like modern plant foods, a lot of modern pork is a far cry from what it used to be.
@jessica2
Modern chickens are usually trashy just like pigs because of their modern diets (which LACK insects and are overloaded with grain and fortifications). Chickens are supposed to be predators (insects and small mammals) more than grain scratchers. Pigs and chickens are both monogastrics, which means they harbor relatively few intestinal bacteria to destroy plant compounds, and because they suck at converting indigestible fiber to energy they wind up with commercial diets that lead to accumulation of omega-6 fats.
The lean meat portion is certainly going to be the least affected by this diet though, so I wouldn't be all that concerned about that part. But if you're eating lean meat, that means you're relying on carbs for energy, and carbs use up thiamine at a faster rate than fat, and possibly cost the body some other nutrients, so the potentially higher levels of some nutrients in lean pork will tend to get washed out by the other part of your diet.
Feeding cows grain waste is not ideal, and I personally avoid grain-finished beef as much as I can, but the end result is arguably a lot healthier for a human than pig and chicken because the cows are still largely accumulating fat from fiber fermentation rather than direct absorption of polyunsaturated dietary fats, and their fermentative digestion systems are better at destroying plant compounds than those of monogastrics.
@jessica2
I’m sorry but farmed beef is a far superior product to farmed pork in every way. Omega 6/omega 3 ratio is definitely crucial given how we’ve seen obesity and weight gain skyrocket in direct correlation to the enormous increase in omega 6 intake over the past century.
Ruminant animals like beef have multiple stomachs and are able to detoxify and perform nutrient conversion at are far greater rate than pigs.
Pig’s are mono-gastric animals and their meat will reflect what they eat- in the case of farmed pigs in the first world, this is absolute garbage. This is also the similar story for chicken. They’re cheap for a reason.
You also can’t compare the pork produced by okinawans and other non-industrialized societies, to the pork produced today. They are fed a completely different diet and thus the meat is completely different.
You can argue that you that don’t like the taste of grass fed beef, or that you can’t afford it, but you cannot argue that industrialised pork is anywhere near as optimal.
They’re literally not similar as far as meat goes. Pork is fed toxic garbage and those toxins accumulate in the fat- which they have plenty of.
It’s a very fatty meat with a high proportion of pufa, and that pufa is heavily geared towards omega 6 with a 20:1 ratio.
I've tried both beef and pork and I feel much better on a 100% pork diet. I've had trouble eating enough beef because I sort of dislike the taste. My body just doesn't want it, for whatever reason. It was the best grass fed and finished beef one can get here in Germany and still it didn't matter one bit.
I did muscle testing eventually and it proved what I expected - beef is not ideal for my body while pork is. So I eat the same meal of lean meat and crisply cooked pork belly morning, afternoon and sometimes again at night and so far I can't get enough of it. If I was eating unhealthily my body would reject it or show signs of ill health, which it doesn't.
I don't really think the amount of nutrients is the decisive factor. If it's not the right type of meat for one's body then all the nutrients won't do any good. Naturally, also pigs should be fed proper food and have a good quality of life but that goes for all animals if they are to stay healthy. I'm happy to pay more for meat from good sources and thus support the welfare of my food.
@jessica2
What do you consider to be your main source of energy then? Olive oil or some other plant oil?
I didn't say chickens wouldn't eat plants and grains, I said they are predators capable of digesting some types of plant material (not unlike bears and humans, both monogastric predators). Chickens are gallinaceous birds with crops that store things like seeds for later digestion, and while these things sit in the crop they change chemically in such a way as to make them more digestible. Thus, they are obviously built to handle grain consumption, but that doesn't mean that feeding them grains results in an ideal food for humans. Like so many other things we eat in large quantities these days, birds were most likely rarely on the menu before modern agriculture due to a poor cost:benefit of the effort it takes to capture them (wild birds are typically very lean and the energy expended in capturing them would have resulted in very little payback energy).
My landlords had a one-eyed chicken that free-ranged on their property. That thing was more effective at controlling the vole population around the vegetable gardens than the cat they had! With only a single eye, it would catch and swallow voles whole. That's a pretty a strong indication of the instinctual predator behavior of chickens...
Your "plants are poison" is also a misstatement. It's quite obvious that humans have been consuming some plant material for millions of years. But there's a cost, which is that they all contain toxins. If they weren't toxic, all animals would tend to become herbivorous, and the plants would all get eaten, and then there wouldn't be plants. If plants didn't harm people, then a carnivore diet wouldn't be the solution to so many different disease states that it so clearly is.
I really wish more people understood some of the basic concepts behind evolution and ecology...
@jessica2
Carnivore is not a faith (not for me at least). It is a rational choice based on a vast accumulation of objective evidence, along with some very basic biological concepts, such as the existence of carnivorous, omnivorous, and herbivorous animals and the marked differences in their digestive anatomies.
@jessica2
Misstated yet again, because hyperbole is the only way to keep that argument alive...
It is not "tossing aside" the whole known history of human eating habits and diets worldwide, it is scrutinizing them and making logical inferences. If a vegan diet is unsustainable but a carnivore diet is not, that means humans are built to survive on meat, not plants. Simple as that. That does not mean humans can't make use of plants, but it does mean that meat contains all essential nutrients and plants do not. That does not mean that some modern people aren't "broken" for various reasons and may struggle on an all-meat diet, but it does indicate that an all-meat diet is the baseline diet of the human species. There is no counter-argument to that, period.
The breadth of diets that exists today is a reflection of adaptation to different environments and food availability, not optimization of human health. Cats and dogs survive on shit commercial food, which is an adaptation to their environment of limited availability of more ideal food. Just because cats don't die when they eat cooked squash is no indication that they should be eating it, it just happens to provide enough nutrients to be a better choice than starving to death. My in-laws just visited the Channel Islands off of California where some mainland foxes populated the area at one point, and have since evolved smaller body sizes due to their increased reliance on vegetation for food in the absence of prey that exists on the mainland. I would bet everything that all it would take is increased prey availability to return that population to a larger body size. I would also bet everything that those foxes would not survive on the mainland due to competitive exclusion. They adapted to survive in the island environment at a cost to their fitness in a more competitive environment.
People around the world resorted to eating anything that prevented starvation, and thanks only to our elevated level of cognition that stemmed directly from our evolutionary history of hunting animals, we are rather good at solving the problem of starvation by innovating tools to convert indigestible toxic stuff into useful nutrients, but at the cost of fitness relative to humans eating an optimal diet in an ancestral environment.