Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
livinlite
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:38 pm

Post by livinlite »

I eat grass-fed ground beef as my protein and at $4.99/lb most of the time, it's a decent deal. Add to that some organic eggs and that's pretty much it for me.
I think food is one of those areas where it really pays to figure out how to earn an extra $100 than to figure out how to cut out an extra $100 by eating sketchy food for your type.
It's easy to turn to food though as a "variable cost"; but I'm guessing there may be other areas you could make some cuts in...


Roark
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:40 am

Post by Roark »

"But also think that while your acne gets bad when you eat wheat, there are lots of other people that eat a lot of it and don't get acne."
--You can't draw any conclusions from that statement. There are a lot of people who smoke and don't get lung cancer. In fact, the majority of smokers do not get lung cancer.
"If wheat could bring acne, most European would be full of acne in the past, as that was the basis of their diet."
--Europeans did not eat genetically modified, selectively bred wheat that has dramatically increased its protein (and thus gluten) content in the last 50 years. They also did not eat quick rise bread, but sourdough traditionally prepared fermented bread which if fermented long enough can even be handled by those with Celiac disease (thus the fermentation process breaks down nearly all of the gluten). And also, I think you are overstating the significance of wheat in many traditional European diets--many regions of Europe ate a majority of their grains from oats, buckwheat, etc which are out of vogue now.
"Even more dramatic, you will see no acne in old asian people, and they didn't eat much meat and no dairy."
--They don't have acne because they ate a diet more similar to a hunter gatherer, meat, fish, vegetables, and rice. Old Asian people did not eat wheat. You could not afford wheat in Korea until very recently. And they cooked with pork lard. Koreans savour the greasiest parts of the pig, and all of their traditional soups are made with pork/ox fat and bones as the base. I think the reason for low prevalence of acne is more likely to be the absence of industrially processed grains and dairy.
"It was only after the western habits took hold of the world that the situation changed."
--That is correct, but "meat" and "animal fat" are not Western inventions. In fact, Westerners ate a lot less calories from animal sources compared to many traditional cultures.
" I would say that it is not only the wheat itself, but the combination of white fiber-less wheat with loads of animal grease that brings this condition."
--Before we can have a useful conversation about this you have to grab a dermatology textbook and look up the "proximal causes of acne."
--All industrialized cultures are full of acne according to the research, and it is at a rate of almost 90% presence in adolescents living in industrialized cultures. It is absent in hunter gatherer populations.
What is the causal evidence you have that "animal grease" causes acne? I think if you have a causal argument as to why animal fat would cause acne, then it would be hard to reconcile with the fact that acne is completely absent from all hunter gatherer populations. These are populations that on average survive on 40-50% of calories from animal sources. Non-industrialized Inuit populations also eat an enormous amount of "animal grease" and do not suffer from acne. It is only when they eat industrialized foods that they begin suffering from acne and other diseases of civilization.
" If you want to try six months of animal products no more than twice a month (and a small portion), avoiding also refined sugars and white rice or white flour of any kind, specially no dairy, you may find some interesting results. The oil from the acne doesn't come from the air, it comes from your diet."
I already have a diet which has made me acne free for 7 years, as long as I remain on it: a paleolithic diet (with added white rice). The acne (and allergies) reappear whenever I reintroduce dairy or grain products. I think I would definitely see "interesting" results by virtually eliminating meat from my diet: a dramatic loss in muscle mass (with no change in acne or allergies, since I currently have none).
PS I'm in Korea now :-)


zarathustra
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: VEGAS, BABY

Post by zarathustra »

My problem was carbs/sugar and teetering close to diabetes or on my way. Cutting that out or down to 10-20g/day = higher energy, crazytown fat loss, better sleep, clearer skin, shiny hair, better mood, less or zero stomach issues (of which i had most of my life until changing eating habits), hungry far less often, laser-sharp focus/clearer thinking, higher endurance, and more defined muscles . . . and I'm a woman.


Roark
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:40 am

Post by Roark »

"I would take a step back and question: what's the reason to keep this size?"
First, thank you for your contributions to this thread Bigato. They are good questions to think about.
I think the reasons for remaining at this size are both intrinsic and extrinsic. The first is that I just enjoy pushing myself to this level, the same as a marathoner enjoys running for miles on end. He is not increasing his health by running additional miles or races, in fact there is very good evidence that at a certain point, marathon running is harmful to his health. Not all things in life are process related, some are just ends in themselves.
Now, I do have extrinsic motivations which add to the pleasure of training to be both bigger and stronger (I enjoy both aspects). One is for my partner, who actually prefers a man slightly bigger than I am now. I do like being stronger than my opponents in Muay Thai, wrestling, and Judo. I enjoy continually increasing my absolute strength in the gym as well (not just my strength to weight ratio). I also like being strong for a fighter overall, rather than strong for my weight class. I don't see much point in being a small and less strong fighter. For example, I don't like the idea that they sell to women, that she can somehow defend herself against me in a fight as long as she has enough Brazilian Jiu Jitsu training. How is she going to triangle me? I dumbbell snatch more than her bodyweight in one hand, for reps. If she tries to triangle me I can literally throw her into the sky. A small human being should carry a legal weapon if they are worried about their self-defense.
That said, I don't train combat sports to ever prepare for a street fight, but for love of the game. I just like the idea of attempting to become the absolute best I can be in all dimensions that are open to my influence (which includes gaining strength and weight) rather than just within a specific weight class. If I shrank down to 55kg and mopped the floor with women and little boys I wouldn't be so "proud." My Greco coach told me I'd do very well by cutting to the 80kg weight class but I just prefer not to go there for now.
There are probably other extrinsic motivations, such as being more attractive according to my culture's standards, etc. Attractiveness is not all about getting women (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 53890.html [note that this researcher found erotic capital was more rewarded in men than in women] ). However let me state that I believe physical attractiveness for a man is more about his grooming and type of dress as well as facial symmetry, more than his muscles. Anyway, these issues, if they are true, are just icing on the cake of an activity that I'd already prefer to do.
This line of conversation is probably boring to people and would prefer to get back to the topic of finding the cheapest source of protein. I'd like to "have it all" so to speak, rather than give up something I really enjoy for the sake of being able to eat less protein.


Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »

Hm. Another thing you should think about is how much protein you actually need if your goal is simply to maintain your current 95 kg frame. You may want to check out Brad Pilon's "How much protein", which argues that the amount of protein you need to maintain and/or build muscle is less than assumed in bodybuilding circles, which often assume 1-1.5 g/lb lean mass. He challenges it with a bunch of research, and he's a bodybuilder himself and used to be a researcher for supplement companies. His suggestion in a nutshell is 120g is enough, more protein would be a waste of money/time/energy. I would also second bigato's suggestion of trying to learn what vegan bodybuilders do.
Here's a link to a thread on bodybuilding.com on the protein issue:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthrea ... 023&page=1


User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Post by Ego »

I find this very interested. This forum naturally attracts those who go to extremes and plan ahead. We are interested in taking actions today that will pay off in a big way in the future....extreme saving to produce an extremely early retirement. Of course, the concept of what is "extreme" is determined in contrast to the "average".
Evidence suggest that high-meat diets are a Faustian bargain. In financial terms they seem to be similar to an investment with a fast return but an extremely high risk of future loss. While they almost certainly produce muscle fast (I believe the decrease in acne is a result of removing dairy) they are very highly correlated with cardiovascular disease and cancer death.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162746.htm
The average person has become very comfortable with short-term thinking, where immediate gratification is more important than the long-term consequences. But there are several thoughtful, intelligent people here who use this type of diet. I have to assume they have considered the long-term consequences and know something that I do not. I wonder what that is.


Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »

@Ego: This notion has grown in the 70s based on a faked study and pushed by a government committee. There's nothing wrong with meat or animal fat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
You may want to read Good Calories, Bad Calories for the details.


jzt83
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:54 pm

Post by jzt83 »

I wonder what the mortality rate of people who mostly eat unprocessed organic free-range meats cooked at low heat? I think the increased cancer risk stems from the nitrates in processed meats and meats cooked at high heats.


User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Post by Ego »

Felix, thank you for posting that video. I watched it twice because I thought maybe I missed something. They didn't mention meat at all. It did mention processed oils and wheat which I agree can be bad for us.
When you said "faked study" from the 1970s what did you mean? The study I linked to above was actually an analysis of two very large epidemiological studies of human nutrition, one of which was begun in the 1970s.
How was it faked? Why?


User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Post by Ego »

@jzt83, I wonder what the mortality rate of people who mostly eat unprocessed organic free-range meats cooked at low heat? I think the increased cancer risk stems from the nitrates in processed meats and meats cooked at high heats.
That's a very good point. We were in the middle of nowhere in Southern Argentina a while ago and were able to get steaks from cattle that roamed freely in massive fields. It was the best steak I've ever eaten. The flavor was very different than what I had become used to at home. It made me really question the meat we were getting at home. Why is the taste so different?


User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Post by jennypenny »

I'm a big believer in low carb/paleo diets for most people, but I do think the quality of the food is just as important as the type. When people criticize low carb diets, they usually point to mediterranean diets. But don't most people in Italy make their own pasta? I would think that's much healthier than me opening a box of pasta (full of additives and preservatives) that's been on a shelf for 6 months. Plus they're usually consuming it with seafood of some sort or fresh olive oil. I think fresh food is best regardless of diet.
I also don't think the paleo diet is best for everyone. We have 5 people in my house on 3 different diets. I think everyone's needs are different and they change as you age. Ego, search for Gary Taubes for some reliable info on paleo. (not to convince you, just for enlightenment)


Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Post by Chad »

I doubt most healthy Italians use pasta as the main dish like all of our (US) pseudo "authentic" Italian restaurants do here. The amount is probably the main factor.


Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »

@Ego: The reference was to Ancel Keys' 6 countries study, which was the basis for the idea that saturated fat (and by that implication animal fat) is bad for us.
A copy of Gary Taubes' article in Science can be found here:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/taubes.html
Ever since that time there has been held the notion that meat is somehow unhealthy and there have been attempts at proving it for decades. It can be traced down to that study.
However, the most that has been established are weak correlations between meat intake and disease, not causal links. The study your article references to is a good example "Red Meat Consumption Linked to Increased Risk of Total, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality". It says "linked to" and "associated". Well, people who stick to a meat-heavy diet usually also do less health-related effort in general, so it is hard to tell whether this correlation is based on meat or other cofounding factors.

Given that several studies show correlations between high meat, cholesterol and fat intake and *low* risk of heart disease (MRFIT or the Framingham Study), this casts quite some doubt on the validity of the hypothesis. And this is all this is. All you can get from epidemiological studies are suggestions of hypotheses, statistical links. People with less hair have higher rates of diabetes, but this doesn't mean that hair loss causes diabetes. However, this is what many articles in this regard suggest.
Here are some links to recent reviews of the scientific literature on the subject.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
Also, please note that the article mentions a link mostly between *processed* meat and a rise in health risks.

The meat/animal food intake of people on a paleo diet usually revolves around unprocessed, often organic meat for which even less of a case can be made. It is also dangerous that in many studies they lump together trans fats, for which there is actually some causal chain between intake and disease and saturated fats in general for which there is no such chain, again clouding the data.
If you're really interested, I refer you to Taubes, Ravnskoff and Colpo, who have each written very good books on that subject.


User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by jennypenny »

Since this thread first made the rounds, I've had to give up soy, gluten, nuts, and shellfish. Traditional meats have also gotten pretty expensive. I find I'm mostly eating eggs and tuna and supplementing with protein shakes. Any suggestions for cheaper protein ideas? I'm concerned with the amount of tuna I'm eating. I'm trying to learn how to make more cheeses. I found a farm that does free range chicken and beef near me, but it's pricey so I don't know if it's worth it.

workathome
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by workathome »

I'd eat oatmeal with breakfast every day. I pay for the Gluten-free variety, but it is much more expensive. You may need to see if you react to normal oatmeal, or organic varieties, to see if your system can tolerate the small amounts from equipment also grinding wheat. It is protein rich though. Rice and beans for lunch, with a bit of pork or bacon mixed in for flavoring (traditional South American dishes). Dinner would be your most expensive if you want an Omlet or a stew with more meat proteins.

SkaraBrae
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:03 am

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by SkaraBrae »

What counts as "the cheapest source of protein" depends very much on what your regular meat prices are, how much of a stickler you are for grass fed/pasture raised, and how you feel about soaked grains.

At the "must be wild/organic/free range/local/sustainable" yuppie end of the conventionally frugal spectrum, the cheapest you're going to get is buying a quarter/half/whole animal. (People usually do this with cows, but you can do it with goats, pigs, lamb, etc. too.) Best bet is usually to find a supplier at the farmer's market and start asking them about bulk/wholesale pricing. You need a deep freeze for this, but, where I live, this can net you $30/lb cuts of beef for $4-$4.50/lb. Similarly, if you know where to go and who to ask, you can get organic free range whole chicken for $2/lb -- normally the absolute best price you'd find here is about $4.50/lb from the farmer.

If you can trap/snare that's very cheap. I don't know about the costs involved with hunting but I'd imagine it's one of those things that can swing either way (you could make it spendy or thrifty depending on how you do it).

In North America, offal is also usually cheaper than muscle meat because it's not a popular cut. You will probably have to go to a butcher or market to find it, as very few supermarkets stock it (at least in North America -- it doesn't sell well). They probably won't have it on display. If you buy a half or whole animal from the butcher, you will usually get it for free here. It is very nutritious (if you trust the source of the animal, anyway). I'm not sure how Korea is, but I'd start by finding butchers and market vendors there and asking them about availability and pricing. Some cuisines consider organ meats to be delicacies and it may actually be more expensive than some cuts of regular meat.

Also don't overlook bones for broth. Those are usually tossed in free by North American butchers too when you buy bulk. This is more fat and nutrition than protein, but bears mention.

There are also "unusual" (to North American palate) protein sources like insects (ants, grasshoppers, etc.) and arachnids (tarantulas and so on), and other types of rodent, pest, or wild meat (squirrel, rat, guinea pig, snake, etc. around the world and roadkill in North America). I have no experiences with these and no idea what cost or effort might be involved, nor how to prepare them.

Sadly, there is no substitute for the somewhat tedious work of simply pricing out the per-serving costs of the various types of protein available to you (while still taking into consideration the various micronutrients you'll need): if you are near the coast, seasonal fish and some seafood will likely be much cheaper than beef -- even a whole cow's worth of discounted beef. On the prairies, not so much. Eggs are usually pretty cheap no matter where you live - but they may not be chicken eggs. Sprouted grains are cheapest of all, but not everyone wants to/can go that route. A lot depends on what is subsidized where you live. The cheapest meat is that you grow/catch yourself, but you do need to factor in the cost of raising/feeding/butchering it and the time involved to see if it's worth your while.

thebbqguy
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:33 am
Contact:

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by thebbqguy »

I would suggest looking into raising rabbits for meat, if you live in a area that would allow that possibility. It's very healthy and they reproduce quickly. You know...like rabbits :-)

"Rabbit meat contains 20.8% while turkey follows with 20.1% and chicken with 20%. Medium-fat veal has 18.0% and a good grade of beef comes in at only 16.3%. A medium-fat lamb contains 15.7% and medium- fat pork slides in last at only 11.9% of protein per pound."

"Domestically produced rabbit meat contains less fat than other meats. Again, beginning with the rabbit we see only 10.2% fat per pound compared with chicken at 11.0%, turkey at 20.2%, veal at 14.0%, good beef at 28.0%, lamb comes in at 27.7% and once again pork has a whopping 45.0% fat per pound."

Source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/102 ... bbit_meat/

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by George the original one »

thebbqguy beat me to the punch... I was thinking you have enough room to raise rabbits in your backyard, jenny. Now whether your zoning allows you to keep as many as you'd need to feed your horde is another matter.

workathome
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by workathome »

But who could hurt those pretty little wabbits :'(

Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Cheapest Source of Protein (Bodybuilding, Paleo)

Post by Felix »

Image

Post Reply