Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
there is absolutely nothing true about what are saying.
in fact, its beyond absurd to suggest that any red meat has negative calories. there are only a handful of foods that do and they are all fruits and vegetables because they are mostly water, trapped in fiber.
you are basically saying "hey, you can lose weight by eating bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner because the caloric yeild is similar to that of asparagas or celery"
 |
No, I'm not saying that at all. If you would study how meat is acually broken down and used for energy you would understand, a lot of things "we knew" have changed. I'm no expert but I have done my reading.
The fat/protein in the meat allows the energy to be stored in your body for longer periods of time. It takes a several types of enzymes to breakdown meat where it only takes a few to breakdown veggies. When your body releases so many extra enzymes the process of breaking down the food acually burns up more total energy that you will get from the meat.
The difference is, the energy from the meat is stored for use over a long period of time and the energy from most veggies is used in a very short period of time.
So no, eating more red meat would create a greater yield of stored up fat, and based on how a person uses that stored up fat they could get fat, buff, or be like me and just burn it off sitting behind a chair.
Our gov has already stated processed red meat is bad for you and that you should avoid it. You can find 10000's of case studies on removing red meat from the diet and people with extreme health issues just turning around. Not always of course but enough you should take notice.
To someone else, can't remember who it was.. The Inuit's (or Eskimos) eat a lot of raw fish and skins to get the vitos they need during the winter. If you study cultures that live in extreme conditions you will find that they acually have just enough of the right foods/water, ect to survive in that area, or that area would have no people.