PDA

View Full Version : Steak



heathj
08-14-2001, 12:13 AM
When I start my bulking cycle, which will be in October. I am gonna try to gain 15-25 pounds. I have heard that steak is a great mass builder. Steak is about $4 for 16 oz. I was thinking of eating 8 -16 oz of steak every day. Would this have any adverse side effects to my health, because I have also heard your supposed to take in meats in moderation.

xraygirl
08-14-2001, 12:35 AM
Please...if you need to moderate something in your diet, make it high glycemic carbohydrates and sugar. They're evil.
Now a steak sounds good to me.
But then, I'm not a nutritionist, I only know what works for me. And steak does.

D.

YatesNightBlade
08-14-2001, 02:17 AM
Steak will make your balls grow and put hairs on your chest.



Oh ..... It will also give you big muscle. Go for it.

Tryska
08-14-2001, 04:16 AM
well....not that i have anything against steak...(which i think is a good choice) but i'm a firm believer in variety....mix it up some...get some bulk chicken breasts too, get some eggs...get some fish.....otherwise you might get bored and run the risk of being "steaked out". and not want to eat it again for months or years.....

Savannah
08-14-2001, 06:05 AM
I could handle eating a steak every single day of my life!

Now I'm hungry for one...............
Ronan I want to have some beef today:(

gino
08-14-2001, 06:32 AM
I won't even comment on that last line sav...

Anyhoo, I say eat as much steak as you can. Since you aren't cackerot, you're not going to be bulking forever, so I don't think you should worry too much about the negatives associated with red meat. 16-24 oz of red meat every day helped me gain some good weight the last time I bulked.

IceRgrrl
08-14-2001, 06:40 AM
I agree w/Tryska...eat steak, by all means, but mix it up with some other proteins. The variety will keep things interesting AND give you a better mix of various nutrients.

The only thing I would watch w/ lots of steak is your cholesterol level. If you have a predisposition to higher blood pressure, lots of red meat may not be the best diet.

If you can get it, how about buffalo, beefalo, or venison? Lean red meat extraordinaire!

Paul Stagg
08-14-2001, 07:03 AM
From what I'm reading, dietary cholesterol levels are not a factor for most people.

Maki Riddington
08-14-2001, 07:04 AM
Lol at Gino.

I would mix it uplike Tryska said.
There was only so much steak I can take in while bulking.
I grew tiered of eating 12 ounces a day.
I'm saving my steak for my dieting days.

Cackerot69
08-14-2001, 07:04 AM
Steak = ace.

Tryska
08-14-2001, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
From what I'm reading, dietary cholesterol levels are not a factor for most people.

hey paul..what are you reading right now? (from my sources fat does not =evil as well)

Cackerot69
08-14-2001, 07:21 AM
My cholesterol is high as hell, I'll be dead of heart attack at 20.

YatesNightBlade
08-14-2001, 07:25 AM
We gotta wait that long. :rolleyes:

Frankster
08-14-2001, 07:33 AM
yeah come on cack.. you can do it sooner.. just eat a couple more big macs each day.

the doc
08-14-2001, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Savannah

Ronan I want to have some beef today:(

Struggling not to make comment... hot beef... lol...

i cant resist

bahahahahhahahaha

the doc
08-14-2001, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
From what I'm reading, dietary cholesterol levels are not a factor for most people.

i agree with paul. My uncle ( a rather plump man) would eat every part of any meat he was served. His favorite was beef gristle, you know the white fatty tissue surrounding any beef cut. His cholesterol was never about 140 and he loved beef fat!

hemants
08-14-2001, 08:16 AM
Dietary saturated fat is a bigger factor than dietary cholesterol in terms of raising blood cholesterol.

1 steak has about 8g of saturated fat as long as it is broiled.

Just add that to your count for the day and watch what else you eat that is high in sat fat.

Savannah
08-14-2001, 08:18 AM
:rolleyes:

I actually was referring to getting to eat some steak some day as Ronan has been helping me with my diet :p

YatesNightBlade
08-14-2001, 08:21 AM
liar. You was talking about 'ye old beef sword'.

IceRgrrl
08-14-2001, 08:36 AM
I agree that dietary cholesterol is not a problem for most people, but for that small part of the population that is prone to it, it can be serious.

A lot of it is just plain old body chemistry. My dad can eat anything and still have low cholesterol/low BP. His brother has to watch his diet AND take BP medication to keep his cholesterol and BP down.

He also had a heart attack at 42 despite eating relatively cleanly and being very physically active. His doctor said he is just one of those people prone to problems in this area.

I guess you just have to know your own body and listen to it...

Frankster
08-14-2001, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by YatesNightBlade
liar. You was talking about 'ye old beef sword'.

yeah liar liar.. pants on fire ! :D

Yaz
08-14-2001, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Savannah
Ronan I want to have some beef today:(

OMG. ROFLHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA. 100% Irish Beef!

Sav: :o
Ronan: :D

Maki Riddington
08-14-2001, 09:18 AM
Hahahahaha, nice cover up sav;)

hemants
08-14-2001, 09:42 AM
Also remember that while heart disease is linked to bp/blood cholesterol, it is not a 100% correlation.

ie. Just because you have proper bp and blood cholesterol does NOT guarantee you a healthy heart.

The safest thing is to eat clean and keep dietary sat fat and cholesterol in moderation.

Paul Stagg
08-14-2001, 10:46 AM
I've been reading some abstracts and discussions on mfw regarding some of these issues.

Your body makes more cholesterol that you eat in a day... the main factors in elevated blood cholesterol are genetics and bf%.

Tryska
08-14-2001, 10:49 AM
agreed.....although..some of the reading i've been doing is pointing towards lowered thyroid function, which would also be genetic, and would have an effect on BF. it's interesting stuff.

i think i might have to go surf mfw a bit too.....it's become a pet research topic for me the past few weeks.

breeze
08-14-2001, 10:51 AM
A steak a day. Jesus you guys are killing yourself with those unhealthy diets. The human body doesn't break down red meats properly and consuming too much places you at an increased risk of colon cancer. tuttut

Yaz
08-14-2001, 11:10 AM
*plop* No problems he-yah!

breeze
08-14-2001, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Yaz
*plop* No problems he-yah!


I hope you have a can of air freshener. You will need all of it to kill the scent of partially digested meat.

Paul Stagg
08-14-2001, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by breeze
A steak a day. Jesus you guys are killing yourself with those unhealthy diets. The human body doesn't break down red meats properly and consuming too much places you at an increased risk of colon cancer. tuttut

??

What is the source for this?

breeze
08-14-2001, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg


??

What is the source for this?

You mean the statistically significant correlation between red meat and colon cancer?

Yaz
08-14-2001, 11:35 AM
My happy trails smell like flowers.

Matx
08-14-2001, 11:37 AM
lets all have a perfect diet so we can live forever...
perfect diet or not u can still get hit by a car or die a million otherways before health will even come into question.

hemants
08-14-2001, 11:42 AM
http://www.cancerpage.com/cancernews/cancernews855.htm

Here is one article of course with the caveat that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

heathj
08-14-2001, 11:43 AM
I am gonna have my cholesterol level results in a few days. My dad has high cholesterol though. 330 I think.

Paul Stagg
08-14-2001, 11:44 AM
Yes -

As I recall, the correllation was with diets high in red meat - which wasn't particularly meaningful, as there were other factors in the diet that ALSO could have been contributors, the main one being a lack of fiber. I'm curious if there was more out there showing a stronger correllation.

Also, I'm curious where the idea that humans don't 'break down' red meat came from... I've never even heard that.

No need to go out and find an abstract, just fill me in on where you found/heard/learned the info.

Tryska
08-14-2001, 11:54 AM
I'd be curious to read that information to.....humans are omnivorous...and natural history would show that we've scavenged, hunted, farmed red meat for ALL of our time on this earth.

So saying our bodies can't break it down, definitely has my curioisty piqued too.

breeze
08-14-2001, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Yes -


No need to go out and find an abstract, just fill me in on where you found/heard/learned the info.


I leave that sort of stuff to cackerot. I think the latest one I came across was from The Harvard School Of Public Health.

hemants
08-14-2001, 12:12 PM
Human's are equipped to eat almost anything; it's part of why we have survived as a species.

But we are not designed the way carnivores are (short digestive track, digestive enzymes in saliva that break down meat) thus meat doesn't digest as quickly and easily as fruits and vegetables.

Saying "we don't break down red meat" is probably a stretch, who said that anyway?

I've always heard (doctor's, television, books) that red meat is the biggest dietary factor in colorectal cancer so I don't have any specific source; that's why I posted the citation as I thought it would be more valuable than hearsay.

Tryska I'm sure that if you read some natural history you'll find that civilizations tended to flourish around a fertile flood plain.

breeze
08-14-2001, 12:17 PM
hemants I never said that red meat doesn't breakdown in the stomach. adding to what you stated; thus meat doesn't digest as quickly and easily and totally. you are totally correct about red meat and colorectal canser. Also red meat increased uterine fibroids and non-hodgkin's lymphoma in women.

hemants
08-14-2001, 12:23 PM
breeze,

then I suppose I was just quoting a misquote :)

breeze
08-14-2001, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by hemants
breeze,

then I suppose I was just quoting a misquote :)

Possible. :)

Tryska
08-14-2001, 12:30 PM
hemants - agreed, "civilizations" flourished on fertile flood plains - because they were rooted in grain-based diets after becoming agrarian. (intersting useless factoid - did you know the egyptians had as much a rate of high cholesterol and rheumatoid arthirits as we do today?). Anyways....agrarian communities didn't sprout up until a good 500,000 years after the first hominids came on the scene. Until that point of grain cultivation, we were hunter gatherers. Although small communities did sprout up surrounding wild grain patches (probably the precursors of the flood-plain civilizations).


oh and biologically speaking, our digestive tracts are much closer to carnivorous creatures than to herbivorous creatures. We are very capable of digesting meat, and living of it...if you look at current hunter-gatherer societies (rapidly disappearing, i might add), they consume larger amounts of meat, and far more fat then we do, and definitely don't see the rates of HBP, Cholesterol, Stroke, and Cancer that we see.

I'm thinking specifically of the Masai, and the Eskimo (who incidentally lived in ketosis all winter long, because there diets for that season consisted of jerky. (can't remember what it was made from though)

hemants
08-14-2001, 12:34 PM
Tryska - agreed.

I think ancient man just grabbed what he could find (which probably varied with geography) but that doesn't mean it was all easily digested right?

What was the average life span of the hunter/gatherers, maybe 40?

"our digestive tracts are much closer to carnivorous creatures than to herbivorous creatures"

Actually it is neither. Our closest genetic relatives are gorilla's and they eat primarily fruit (and meat only when necessary).

But what is the world coming to when human's look to animals to decide how we should live :)

Anyhoo, we're getting off topic :)

Tryska
08-14-2001, 12:37 PM
actually - if they made it past 16 - they tended to live well into there 60s and 70s and as fossil bones show, wthout any trace of rheumatoid arthiritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

umm...genetically speaking our closest relatives are Rhesus Monkeys..*lol* but now i'm nitpicking.

hemants
08-14-2001, 12:45 PM
:)

Actually hunter/gatherers are still abundant LOL, check out the Caveman Diet

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/8526.html

breeze
08-14-2001, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Tryska
actually - if they made it past 16 - they tended to live well into there 60s and 70s and as fossil bones show, wthout any trace of rheumatoid arthiritis, and other autoimmune disorders.


not true. they rarely lived pat 50. perhaps your conclusion is based on few well preserved specimens. The problem with drawing this type of conclusion is that a well preserved burial corpse is more than likely to be a noble, and nobles usually have a healthier life style than the general public.

Tryska
08-14-2001, 12:53 PM
*lol* nice article....

but the physical anthropologist in me, finds fault with the "rarely lived past 20" bit. Of course they didn't.....mortality rate was way to high, because of the harshness of life, the predators, and the lements. However, archeological records still show, if they made it past 25 - they would have been able to survive well into their 60s and 70s. And did.


and no breeze..i'm not talking about nobles....i'm talking about bones found here and there...not within civilized settlements (which wouldn't be hunter gatherers, really)...but yeah..it might not be an overwhelming out of evidence, considering the transience of the populations at hand, however....the fossil records do exist.

breeze
08-14-2001, 01:01 PM
tryska is manufacturing her own history. Hmmm. I used to think you were perfect until I read that you had a cat. ewww

Tryska
08-14-2001, 01:10 PM
*lol* you leave Mr. Kitty out of this....and i am not making up my own history.....i went to school for this shite. ;)

Sayiajin Prince
08-14-2001, 11:40 PM
u have -10% bf do u have to worry about that stuff?

(forgve ingnorance/spelling)