Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:Mirek Fidler said:Quoted message said:Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
grams.
Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
out of thin air.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:OF MEAT.
That is average 120g of protein and 100g of fat (40g saturated,
50g MUFA and 10g PUFA).
Not for 450 grams of *cooked* lean meat.
New conditions not in the earlier example. Chung didn't say anything
about *cooked* or *lean* until now. No one talks about "a 12-16 oz
of steak" as its cooked weight (except Chung to evade his error), and
lean isn't a good criterion for palatability of beef steaks. Now comes
the weaseling and condition-setting and the Chungian mathematics.
But Chung is simply wrong. Again. Watch...
Quoted message said:What you describe as more than 40% fat (by weight) would not be
usual.
But note the sneaky shift here - or the mathematical incompetence...
100 grams divided by 454 grams (16 ounces) = .2202643 = 22%
100 grams divided by 341 grams (12 ounces) = .2932551 = 29%
100 grams divided by 250 grams = .250 = 40%
So it's actually 22% fat in the example, not the 40% that Chung
mistakenly or duplicitously offers. Fat content in that 22% to 29 %
range is well within the center area of the bell curve of fat to total
weight ratios in beef. This example would be a comparatively low-fat
steak.
How typically Chung to be so blatantly wrong about nutrition.
There's no "usual" when discussing a subject with this many variables.
There are different grades of meat (prime is the fattiest, reducing as
quality declines), different cuts of meat (and different ways and
finish criteria of trimming it of fat) and different animals to get it
from. Beef can range from fat percentages in the teens (for low-grade,
tightly trimmed cuts) up to more than 75%, raw, with corresponding
ranges after cooking. A beef brisket cooked Texas-style can have well
over 40% fat as can popular cuts like short ribs and oxtails. It
surely is possible, if out at the opposite end from Chung's erroneous
example wherein he asserts a false condition. As is his usual M.O.
Talking about "steaks" implies dry-cooking like searing, broiling or
charbroiling. The cuts useful for that have to be fattier or they cook
tough and flavorless. When talking about steaks, it's customary to
talk *raw* weight or weight before cooking. Depending on degree of
doneness there will be from about 12% loss up to 60% loss of weight
because of rendered fats and water loss. The variables are too many to
posit a "usual."
Here's raw versus dry-cooked for a high-quality cut:
Beef, short loin, top loin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 124 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 27% fat.
Beef, short loin, top loin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight, 117 grams fat,
112 grams protein. 25% fat.
Here's raw versus moist-cooked brisket:
Beef, brisket, whole, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/4" fat, all
grades, raw: 454 grams total weight, 120 grams fat, 77 grams protein.
26% fat.
Beef, brisket, whole, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/4" fat, all
grades, cooked, braised: 454 grams total weight, 143 grams fat, 106
grams protein. 32% fat.
Here's filet mignon, probably the leanest good cut:
Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 107 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 24% fat.
Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight, 106 grams fat,
113 grams protein. 23% fat.
Here's the leanest cut, of lowest grade sold in supermarkets (prime,
choice, select - below that, it's for canned products, processed foods
and animal foods), trimmed to 0 surface fat, and broiled. It would be
tough, dry and unpalatable, but certainly lean. More useful for stew
or pot roast:
Beef, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, select,
cooked, broiled: 454 total weight, 45 grams of fat, 123 grams protein.
10% fat.
Here's the lowest fat content for any beef product I could find. It
*starts* as 95% lean. 454 grams of this meat cooks to 308 grams; a 32%
loss immediately for evaporation. It would taste and eat like sawdust:
Beef, ground, 95% lean meat/5% fat, crumbles, cooked, pan-browned: 454
grams total weight, 34 grams fat, 132 grams protein. 7% fat.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I thought you might want to know it.
It is not clear to me what you want me to know.
That, once again as is *always* the case when discussing nutrition,
you're wrong. Overstating the case and distorting the truth. Making
wild guesses and unsupported assertions that contradict and falsify
any claims you can make to being a scientist.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:In fact, I would hardly be arguing if you would stated that you
are supposed to eat e.g. 300g of meat, 300g of bread and 300g of
e.g. nuts (as fat source) on 2PD.
I suspect otherwise.
<LOL> Not "discern" merely "suspect."
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:But for the cardiologist relying on every mg of LDL your
statements are very, well, unprecise.
Your judgment.
An observation based on the facts clearly in evidence above. Lack of
precision, equivalent lack of accuracy and lack of reliable support.
*This* truth is simple.
Bob
