No announcement yet.

scared because of this article on read meat and Inuits/Massai not being very healthy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • scared because of this article on read meat and Inuits/Massai not being very healthy

    I have just found this article on the web - I do not know if the source is reliable. Though it does not deal with primal nutrition it harshly critizes the Weston Price foundation which, apart from their stance on grains and dairy, agrees very much with the Primal Blueprint concept. Which scares me is that the article offers an explanation why red meat can possibly cause colon cancer. And they say that the Massai of Kenia and the Inuit are more sickly than of excellent health. I am still new to the Primal Blueprint and I am doing very fine on zero grains and more fat! But I do not know what to make of it: Maybe the Inuit (of today) aren`t healthy anymore for the do NOT live according to their traditional diet? What about the idea about what red meat might cause in the colon? Please, convince me that the article it crap, I feel so fine with my primal nutrition right now!

  • #2
    Mark suggests eating vegetables high in antioxidants with meat. It has been addressed.


    • #3
      What kind of info (with nothing sourced to back it up) do you think you'd find on a website called Vegsource?


      • #4
        The article does seem to include an awful lot of broad, sweeping statements along the lines of 'all the science says'. I've learned to take such things with a hearty pinch of salt.

        As for the poor longevity of pure carnivores - not a huge surprise. Other side of the same coin: 'blue zone' diets are all plant-based (which is not the same thing as vegan). Eating Primal also means eating more vegetables, as they replace the grains - I'm certainly eating far more than I did as a vegetarian or vegan.

        I don't know about red meat and colon cancer - anyone? Has anyone actually taken the trouble to study this separately from processed meat?


        • #5
          It's not worth getting scared. For every theory, you can find an opposing voice. If you like reading both sides of the arguments, go down that rabbit hole, but if it makes you afraid, is that really in your best interest?

          Read broadly, figure out what resonates best with you, and then do that. No diet plan guarantees you health or guarantees you sickness. Whichever road you choose, you'll never know for sure whether it was the best one you could have taken.

          Zone diet on and off for several years....worked, but too much focus on exact meal composition
          Primal since July 2010...skinniest I've ever been and the least stressed about food


          • #6
            I don't doubt that Dr. Furhman is very well-researched, but there is plenty of literature that proves the efficacy of a paleo-styled diet. If you are meeting your goals (peak fitness, weight loss, high energy, good body tone, etc.) on this sort of diet, don't worry about a fear-mongering article written by a vegetarian doctor with an obviously biased agenda. Should your health begin to decline, go ahead and give his diet a try. Otherwise, enjoy yourself and don't stress it. :]

            Regarding the article itself, I'd be pretty wary of it. There are a lot of things that are left out. Take this, for example:

            Similar statistics are available for the high meat-consuming Maasai in Kenya. They eat a diet high in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world. Life expectancy is 45 years for women and 42 years for men. African researchers report that historically Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60. Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai show that they have a 50% chance of dying before the age of 59.
            Death by what? Are the Maasai plagued by modern diseases? Are their children dying from malnutrition? If so, why? If not, then what is the cause? Are those life expectancy figures based on the mean or median lifespan? "Historically, Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60." -- According to whom? If so, what was the cause of their early death? None of these questions are answered, but unfortunately, many will read articles like these and walk away with the impression that any form of meat-eating is death-causing.


            • #7
              Always weigh from where the source comes from, in this case, of course you will get anti meat information from those who abhor eating meat. Joel Fuhrman is a vegan. His views clash with Primal Blueprint. His article refer to Atkins, the Zone etc. Primal is none of the diets he is attacking. I have read quite a bit the last year regarding vegetarian diet lifestyle. It appears it works for some but not most and you need to be careful to get all necessary nutrients. Many veg people do not eat correctly. My thinking is vegetarian eating, without the grains, is a good cleansing diet for a period of time if you are into that sort of thing. Clean red meat is not cancer producing, packaged meats/nitrates probably are. Vegetarians always throw all "meats" together when they condemn them.

              We are and have always been omnivores. We are not gorillas or chimps. Humans eat a varied diet which includes meat, always have. Vegetarian and vegan/fruitarian diets are not what we evolved the last 2.5 million years to eat. Those are chimp and gorilla food. Even chimps hunt and eat flesh, not as much as humans but they do intentionally hunt.

              We are omnivores!
              Kurt G. Harris
              Saturated Fat is Healthy

              Beware the Shiite vegans!
              Primal/Paleo is not for everyone, it's for those who have committed to understand.
              READ THE BOOK! Robb Wolf says: "Trying to convince people to save their own ass will burn you out."

              Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, and an affront to all I stand for -- the pure enjoyment of food. Anthony Bourdain

              and yes, calories DO count my little piggies


              • #8
                read hyperlipid, panu, wholehealthsource, health correlator, and perfect health diet. And good calories bad calories. that should give you all the info you might possibly need


                • #9
                  As has been noted, Joel Fuhrman is a vegan, but he's also a vegan with an agenda--to insist that is the only viable way to eat. I would not trust anything he writes.


                  • #10


                    • #11
                      Good calories, bad calories is a good scource for looking at this stuff. Good meats definitely don't cause cancer or any other diseases of civilization, and there's some good evidence that meat in general is very good for you. I specifically remember a study where they measured the vitals of people who ate exclusively meat for a year and didn't have any health problems. Also a lot of anecdotal evidence of the Inuits being extremely robust and healthy, along with the travelers who stayed with them, on a diet of almost exclusively meat.

                      Here's a really good article that clears some things up about the inuit:

                      Last edited by Joshy; 11-28-2010, 10:39 PM.


                      • #12
                        Thank you everyone! I should just stop worrying and trust the fact that I am feeling much better when eating primally!


                        • #13
                          I have done some brief research on the "naturally occuring n-nitroso" in red meat. From what I understand there is no "naturally occuring n-nitroso" but is is associated with "processed meat"? Is this right?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hilary View Post
                            The article does seem to include an awful lot of broad, sweeping statements along the lines of 'all the science says'. I've learned to take such things with a hearty pinch of salt.
                            Whenever you see the words 'all science says' or 'consensus' or something along those lines in an article dealing with scientific matter then its an obvious indication that the author doesn't understand science or the scientific method (or empiricism for that matter)

                            The research, the method, the data, the statistics obtained from that data, the theory built from that data (though theory usually precedes data) should be able to stand on its own two feet. The great thing about science is that it is not a democracy.
                            A steak a day keeps the doctor away