Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New study smashing red meat consumption! Your thoughts?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New study smashing red meat consumption! Your thoughts?

    Another bullshit study!

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/health...html?hpt=he_c2

  • #2
    Originally posted by Sihana
    But really, it is just best to ignore all these studies, especially when it is published by mass media.
    Ignorance is never the answer.
    Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

    Comment


    • #3
      Only ignore studies that do not support your interests.

      Comment


      • #4
        Mark does say to avoid charring meat to avoid toxins. Seems like this study is in line with PB. Although I don't give the study much credence.

        Basically they took a group of 500 people who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a similar group of people who hadn't and then asked them about their dietary habits. The study was controlled for known links to cancer such as genetics, smoking, etc...which means obviously that the study was not controlled for *unsuspected* carcinogens. Specifically for things like inflammation from wheat and the artificial flavoring and coloring agents that fast food places add to their buns.

        ~rc

        Comment


        • #5
          Here's the part that has me scratching my head:

          Men who ate the most ground beef were 2.3 times more likely than men who ate none to have aggressive prostate cancer. Higher consumption of fatty lunchmeats (such as salami) and liver was also associated with an increase in cancer risk. On the other hand, poultry, bacon, and low-fat hot dogs and sausages appeared to have little influence on cancer risk.
          First, ground beef can be anywhere from something like 5% fat up to however much you want, so their whole "fatty meats" theory doesn't apply.

          Second, how can you say salami is fatty and terrible but bacon is lean and fine. Huh???

          Third, when did liver become Satan's Delight? It's good for you!

          Fourth - holy crap, if you're eating lowfat hot dogs, you have bigger problems than I can help with.
          Durp.

          Comment


          • #6
            Grain-fed or grass-fed?

            That question should discredit the study right there.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well it has to be said, there is a risk to living: you will die.

              Grilled meat has some dangers. Well done meat has those also.
              I just think this editorial is not giving me enough dept to change lifestyle....

              And I'm just eating the way I feel is right.....with a glass of Merlot of the side.
              Petra

              Comment


              • #8
                From the study:

                Originally posted by Article View Post
                The men who preferred their burgers well-done had double the cancer risk, while those who liked them medium (or rarer) had a negligible increase in risk -- just 12 percent. A similar pattern was seen with grilled or barbecued steak.
                So, this is really a load of bullshit. The article starts off by pointing a finger toward red meat, and then goes to show that only those who ate red meat that was well done or grilled actually had an increased risk of getting cancer. Then it goes on to say:

                Originally posted by Article View Post
                Men who ate the most ground beef were 2.3 times more likely than men who ate none to have aggressive prostate cancer. Higher consumption of fatty lunchmeats (such as salami) and liver was also associated with an increase in cancer risk.
                Pointing out that PROCESSED FOOD, not RED MEAT increases your cancer risk.

                On top of all this, the study relied entirely on the memory and reports of the patients, that alone makes it completely meaningless.

                So what does this "study" say? Don't eat overcooked or processed food, it might cause cancer. I could of told you that without a multi-million dollar government grant.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by alexdc View Post
                  From the study:



                  So, this is really a load of bullshit. The article starts off by pointing a finger toward red meat, and then goes to show that only those who ate red meat that was well done or grilled actually had an increased risk of getting cancer. Then it goes on to say:



                  Pointing out that PROCESSED FOOD, not RED MEAT increases your cancer risk.

                  On top of all this, the study relied entirely on the memory and reports of the patients, that alone makes it completely meaningless.

                  So what does this "study" say? Don't eat overcooked or processed food, it might cause cancer. I could of told you that without a multi-million dollar government grant.
                  Yeah, but everyone would rightly peg you as a fucktard when they read "could of" instead of "could have".

                  Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
                  No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by marqueemoon View Post
                    Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
                    No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.
                    Dude, if you dont realize the difference between this forum and say the fruitarian forum that we dont want to name I dont know what to tell you. This is by far the most analytic, critisicing and investigating forum Ive ever read when it comes to diet and lifestyle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by marqueemoon View Post
                      Yeah, but everyone would rightly peg you as a fucktard when they read "could of" instead of "could have".
                      Fuck off, douchebag. I'm posting on an internet forum, not writing a damn dissertation. I'll go ahead and point the finger right back at you: you don't start a sentence with "And", and on top of that: "And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?" are both incomplete sentences. Out of the two of us who is the fucktard? I would say you. Hell, what the fuck is "And that we bitch about that, too?" supposed to mean anyway? Maybe you should go back to your first grade teacher and have her class correct that one for you.

                      Originally posted by marqueemoon View Post
                      Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
                      No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.
                      I really couldn't give less of a fuck about Mark. What annoys me about this article is that it takes "study" that was conducted in a way that really gives it absolutely no credibility and tries to market it as absolute truth. What annoys me with this article is the total lack of objectivity and the extreme bias. I couldn't give a damn if it was an article about red meat, dark matter, or neural networks (somehow I seriously doubt your tiny brain could comprehend the last two), if there is one thing that irks the hell out of me it is this trend of reporting opinion under the guise of "unbiased journalism".
                      Last edited by alexdc; 11-24-2011, 12:20 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think anyone was dismissing the article because it disagrees with what Mark said. I think it was the actual content of the article, which was pretty lame, groupiing together foods that had next to nothing in common, then drawing conclusions based on pretty much nothing.
                        Durp.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by alexdc View Post
                          What annoys me about this article is that it takes "study" that was conducted in a way that really gives it absolutely no credibility and tries to market it as absolute truth....
                          Good post and I totally agree. Journalism nowadays is so fucking biased its getting beyond ridic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If they looked at men who ate their meat as hamburgers, how do they know that it wasn't the buns and french fries that caused their problems? I mean, the men who ate more ground beef probably ate more buns and french fries because who eats ground beef without putting it on a bun with sugary catsup, soybean mayo and a side of fries boiled in rancid trans-fat?
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yeah, the article is poorly written.

                              From what I can tell, the issue here is how the meat is cooked, not the meat itself. Well done meats increase risk. The same meats done medium or rare, there's no increased risk. So, meat isn't the problem, the cooking is.

                              Though, the title does say "Well done meats. . ." So it was pretty clear from the outset (for an article of this sort).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X