Grass Fed vs Corn Fed?

[Gankfest]

When it comes to losing weight, and by weight I'm talking like 5 - 10 lbs of abdominal fat is it more beneficial to eat grass fed meat/milk vs. corn fed. I tried looking this up, but could only find non scientific articles on the subject. I shop for food based on cost, so I don't want to spend an extra 100 - 200 dollars a month on grass fed products that have no or little benefit to losing weight and fitness altogether.

 

Thanks!

Edited March 26, 2015 by Gankfest

[Greg H.]

You'll lose more weight by exercising and eating a sensible diet than by changing how your meat is fed.

[Harold Squared]

An interesting documentary on the subject is "King Corn". The original purpose of domesticated animals was to turn inedible vegetable matter into food. Feeding them food and turning it into another sort of food lacks efficiency.

 

Nowadays thanks to GMO biotechnology human insulin is produced by bacteria. Who is to say that in time other bacteria cannot produce bio identical protein for our consumption? Would the resulting pork or beef protein be taboo? Would human flesh produced by such methods be? Could we assemble, in time, replica organs viable for transplants by such means?

 

Food for thought, indeed...

[Greg H.]

Feeding them food and turning it into another sort of food lacks efficiency.

 

This is really the crux of the matter, to be honest.

[Harold Squared]

Indeed. Very recently bovine and porcine insulin was the best one could get but now humulin carries the day, not from the human pancreas but from your basic primordial slime.

 

Popular Science is supposed to have a bit on lab grown leather at the moment, timely for the topic?

 

Maybe.

[Gankfest]

You'll lose more weight by exercising and eating a sensible diet than by changing how your meat is fed.

 

 

What this has to do with Grass Fed vs Corn Fed is beyond me? The rest of what was said doesn't really answer anything, so why it's even posted in here is also beyond me.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Gankfest

[Phi for All]

Here's a study done at CSU Chico.

 

And I don't know where you live, but an extra $100-200/month seems extremely high for grass-fed beef. I live in a good sized city and I estimate the extra cost is about $300/year.

[Harold Squared]

 

 

What this has to do with Grass Fed vs Corn Fed is beyond me? The rest of what was said doesn't really answer anything, so why it's even posted in here is also beyond me.

As I understand it grain fed beef has more fat than grass fed. Caloric value of the meat is related to how lean it is and certain cuts of the same cow are leaner than others, plus the method of preparation greatly influences total calories consumed. So all other things should be equal to make a valid comparison. In general the entire purpose of sending cattle to feed lots is to fatten them up, so grain fed = fatter, given the above caveats. Helpful?

[StringJunky]

Pound for pound, grass-fed meat is leaner which means it has lower energy density than corn-fed; everything else being equal. You've got a choice: pony up the money so you can eat more volume of grass-fed meat or eat less corn-fed for the same calories, and cheaper as well. Corn-fed doesn't have to be fatty; use your eyes.

[Greg H.]

 

 

What this has to do with Grass Fed vs Corn Fed is beyond me? The rest of what was said doesn't really answer anything, so why it's even posted in here is also beyond me.

You asked your question in terms of fitness and losing weight. I answered in the same terms. As for the rest of it, discussion forums are naturally organic, and occasionally topics stray out of their neat categories because that's how people discuss things.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Greg H.

[overtone]

Grass fed beef has a better fat profile than corn fed - the higher omega 3/omega 6 ratio has some weight loss benefits, especially if you are restricting calories and exercising so as to burn deposited fat.

 

Dunno if it's worth the money. Eating beef while trying to lose weight may be something to squint at in the first place.

Edited March 27, 2015 by overtone

[StringJunky]

Grass fed beef has a better fat profile than corn fed - the higher omega 3/omega 6 ratio has some weight loss benefits, especially if you are restricting calories and exercising so as to burn deposited fat.

Corn-fed meat doesn't have to have fat in it just because it's corn-fed.

[Gankfest]

 

Here's a study done at CSU Chico.

 

Thanks, I will look into it.

 

 

And I don't know where you live, but an extra $100-200/month seems extremely high for grass-fed beef. I live in a good sized city and I estimate the extra cost is about $300/year.

 

Colorado US, but I think I overpriced that. If I just did milk it would be roughly 50$ a month, and for beef/chicken 50$ - 80$. Like 130$ a month total. I work out a lot, so I burn a lot of calories. To give an example I rode a BMX bike 8k miles last year + a 25 hour job, and 3 days a week lifting. I'm 33...

 

 

As I understand it grain fed beef has more fat than grass fed. Caloric value of the meat is related to how lean it is and certain cuts of the same cow are leaner than others, plus the method of preparation greatly influences total calories consumed. So all other things should be equal to make a valid comparison. In general the entire purpose of sending cattle to feed lots is to fatten them up, so grain fed = fatter, given the above caveats. Helpful?

 

 

Corn-fed doesn't have to be fatty; use your eyes.

 

Yes this was helpful, and that's how I've understood it. At the same time it's hard to find any real facts on the internet's as there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the issues. Such as: omg GMO's \o/ epidemic, fad diets, pills, supplements, etc... With that being said, thinking about just doing the milk and eating the same meat. I mostly eat chicken and fish, and beef once in awhile. Chicken/Fish is pretty lean anyway, and you can look at the packaging and find the least fattiest cut when it comes to beef. Picking out lean beef isn't an issue.

 

 

You asked your question in terms of fitness and losing weight. I answered in the same terms. As for the rest of it, discussion forums are naturally organic, and occasionally topics stray out of their neat categories because that's how people discuss things.

 

I asked a question, you failed to deliver... How is it my fault? In the future try not side tracking a thread. I'm not trying to be mean about it, but you guys started going into left field. Being 5'11 and 180lbs I'm trying to lose a layer of fat, so not like I'm obese being like how do I put the fork down... Really I'm trying to figure out how much more I can push out of grass fed, but it doesn't seem like it's much if any at all. Either way thanks for the responses, and maybe lowering calorie intake by 100 - 200 is the way to go.

[StringJunky]

The general trend I've noticed in the science research news that I read, regarding nutrition, is that eating a higher proportion of fats and proteins is more conducive to losing weight than biasing your diet in favour of carbs.. Carbs, especially sugars and cereal grains, it seems burn too fast and mess with your glycaemic index causing you to feel hungry more often. These two links, although not what I would call a scientific reference by any stretch, do embody the general direction of the current evolving consensus on sensible nutrition and habits as I understand it. If I had a weight problem this is the way I'd be approaching it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/fat-health_b_4343798.html

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/08/eating-fat-wont-make-you-fat-but-these-10-things-will.aspx

Edited March 27, 2015 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

The general trend I've noticed in the science research news that I read, regarding nutrition, is that eating a higher proportion of fats and proteins is more conducive to losing weight than biasing your diet in favour of carbs.. Carbs, especially sugars and cereal grains, it seems burn too fast and mess with your glycaemic index causing you to feel hungry more often. These two links, although not what I would call a scientific reference by any stretch, do embody the general direction of the current evolving consensus on sensible nutrition and habits as I understand it. If I had a weight problem this is the way I'd be approaching it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/fat-health_b_4343798.html

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/08/eating-fat-wont-make-you-fat-but-these-10-things-will.aspx

 

Meats aren't measured well by the glycemic index since they have no carbs, but do very well on the insulin index. I think the real culprit that prevents weight loss is insulin production. Insulin raises blood pressure, tells the cells to produce their own cholesterol, tells the kidneys to retain salt (causing you to retain water in balance), and is also a huge trigger for fat storage.

 

I couldn't quickly find any data on the insulin index difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef. That might be very interesting. There is also the organic beef classification, which limits the use of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, where grass-fed does not.

[StringJunky]

 

Meats aren't measured well by the glycemic index since they have no carbs, but do very well on the insulin index. I think the real culprit that prevents weight loss is insulin production. Insulin raises blood pressure, tells the cells to produce their own cholesterol, tells the kidneys to retain salt (causing you to retain water in balance), and is also a huge trigger for fat storage.

 

I couldn't quickly find any data on the insulin index difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef. That might be very interesting. There is also the organic beef classification, which limits the use of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, where grass-fed does not.

Cool info. Cheers.