Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Huge study shows red meat boosts risk of dying young

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bangel View Post
    First line of the abstract:
    "Red meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, its relationship with mortality remains uncertain."
    Title of the article I read:
    "Red Meat Tied to Increased Mortality Risk‎ "
    Nice!
    Durp.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Apex Predator View Post
      Humans didn't evolve hunting tiny things like kangaroos. We hunted fat-rich very large game that was largely selected for it's fat/protein ratio.
      Tiny? Kangaroos? They're pretty darn big. Probably bigger or about as big as a deer.

      If you ask a mass of Americans to jeep track of their red meat consumption, what's the likelihood that that red meat will be eaten:

      - in conjunction with a high carb diet
      - as a hamburger at a fast food restaurant
      - as grain-fed beef
      - as muscle meat and never organ meat
      - in conjunction with a diet low in vegetables
      - in conjunction with a diet high in industrial oils and HFCS

      I'm guessing the odds are pretty good for one or all of the above.
      Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

      Comment


      • #33
        I'm beginning to think we can't trust ANY studies, whether for or against our particular viewpoint, due to the way they're funded and the seemingly ridiculous ways they're conducted or reported, or both.
        I absolutely hate seeing claims that start "red meat causes....", as if all red meat is created equal. And no, distinguishing between processed and unprocessed doesn't go anywhere near far enough when you take into account the huge variations in farming standards. Reporting on your food intake every 4 years is so utterly ridiculous I'm surprised a world-respected institution like Harvard allowed the study to ever see the light of day.
        As a species we need to drop the arrogance and admit we don't know anything like as much about the way different foods affect our health. We know more than we used to, sure, but there simply hasn't been enough time elapsed between scientific discovery and the evolutionary proof to support most of what is claimed about nutrition.
        That's why I love Primal, it comes from an evolutionary standpoint for better or worse. Although again, I don't think scientists know nearly as much about how the species evolved as they think they do either.
        All us Primal folk are part of a study of sorts, our beliefs and actions will only be tested by the onset of time. It's quite exciting to be part of something that could one day become the new CW to the benefit of billions. Or we could all die of cancer or heart disease in 5 years if the current CW is correct. I know where I'm putting my faith, and it'd take one hell of a conclusive study to change my mind.
        My Journal: Englishman In Oz, Skinny to Muscle in a Primal Way

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Englishman in Oz View Post
          I'm beginning to think we can't trust ANY studies, whether for or against our particular viewpoint, due to the way they're funded and the seemingly ridiculous ways they're conducted or reported, or both.
          I absolutely hate seeing claims that start "red meat causes....", as if all red meat is created equal. And no, distinguishing between processed and unprocessed doesn't go anywhere near far enough when you take into account the huge variations in farming standards. Reporting on your food intake every 4 years is so utterly ridiculous I'm surprised a world-respected institution like Harvard allowed the study to ever see the light of day.
          Well said, mate. The research industry is thoroughly corrupted by private interests. Do you know the doctors and professors that head up these research institutions are paid millions in annual "consulting fees" by private industry companies and groups? Ridiculous.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
            Tiny? Kangaroos? They're pretty darn big. Probably bigger or about as big as a deer.

            If you ask a mass of Americans to jeep track of their red meat consumption, what's the likelihood that that red meat will be eaten:

            - in conjunction with a high carb diet
            - as a hamburger at a fast food restaurant
            - as grain-fed beef
            - as muscle meat and never organ meat
            - in conjunction with a diet low in vegetables
            - in conjunction with a diet high in industrial oils and HFCS

            I'm guessing the odds are pretty good for one or all of the above.
            Kangaroos and deer are smaller that the Elephants, Autunuach and other megafauna we evolved eating. They are the leftovers, and likely part of why we devoloped agriculture.
            Lifting Journal

            Comment


            • #36
              this: "Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise. "

              is buried in this: Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths - Telegraph

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Go-Pre View Post
                Perhaps someone can help me out on this one:

                If you buy the "lean game meat" theory, than how would a person reach their daily caloric need? Let's say you take in .75 grams of protein per lb of body weight (I know many do more than that) at 160lbs and also eat 150 grams of carbs (not super low). That would mean you need 1420 calories from fat or 157 grams to make 2500 calories.

                Do you suggest that the lean game meat theory means that animal fat is bad? And if so, how does one meat (pun intended) their caloric needs?
                In my experience, lean game isn't always so lean. Deer, for example, will yield tons of almost fat free meat. But during butchering you will often literally be peeling off handfuls of fat from the rump and from within the cavity. It's just completely partitioned from the muscle. It's not as much as you would get with a cow, and the fat is VERY strange to eat, but there are a lot of fat calories between these stores and the internal organs.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I looked at the abstract briefly. I didn't see Ornish anywhere, where was he?

                  The statement about there being no relationship shown yet between red meat and mortality is in the "background" section of the abstract. The research does indicate a relationship between red meat consumption (both processed and unprocessed) and mortality.

                  Further, it does say that they adjusted for other confounding factors (presumably things like smoking and exercise, but I do wonder exactly which things they adjusted for).

                  This doesn't change any of the other possible factors that make the results less applicable to people eating paleo/primal--even if they adjust for "healthy lifestyle" as much as they can, people who are eating the SAD *and* who eat red meat frequently are likely to be the folks who are less concerned about their health (because the health-concerned SAD eaters are trying to eat more chicken, turkey and maybe fish, and then more veggies and whole grains).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by h3hound View Post
                    this: "Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise. "

                    is buried in this: Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths - Telegraph
                    Thanks I was about to post this! This is the major confounder of the study - and what is really the cause of dying of heart disease of cancer? Smoking, being overweight, or not exercising? Does the study say eating red meat causes people to smoke or vice versa? Confounders.

                    Captaineight pops up from time to time saying people here don't respect science yet he never ever reads the studies with a critical eye towards correlations and causations. I remember that from our similar arguments back in last May.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You could rename this to "Huge study shows dying young boosts risk of (eating) red meat" and use the exact same data and analysis to prove it.

                      My theory is those who die young live life to the fullest, so they increase their consumption of red meat.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Based on more information from the study, it appears to be an unhealthy lifestyle of smoking, lack of exercise, and high weight that also happens to coincidentally include red meat that causes the heart disease (why not? If someone is going to not care about things that in reality do cause heart disease, why not eat red meat too?)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          First post here. Looking over the study, and it seems like a fair piece of science. There are a few glaring weaknesses, as others have pointed out; the diet was self-reported, meaning possible (or probable) inaccurate information, and it is unclear what lifestyle habits were controlled for. But putting these aside, I think what we need to pull from this study is that red meat does cause oxidative stress on the body, and grain-fed meat causes inflammation (o6 : o3). These clearly aren't problems in anyone who eats the occasional vegetable and takes their omega-3s, but it's a good warning.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Looks like a study you'd see posted on 30 bananas so all the vegan fruits can continue to exclaim they're morally superior and better people for not eating meat. Free living studies where the subjects report the data themselves are absolutely shit, and this study is no exception. Now, show me a study like this and I'll actually take interest and consider the results:

                            - The study is conducted in a tightly controlled environment where the activities and diets of the subjects are monitored by the researchers to ensure that outside factors are kept to a minimum

                            - All the individuals are healthy with no history of drug abuse, smoking, and so on

                            - The individuals are fed an isocaloric diet based on high quality natural foods, but half the subjects eat red meat as a part of their diet and the other half eat fish or a full vegetarian diet

                            - The subjects are monitored for at least a year under these conditions

                            If at the end of such a study the results show an increased risk of heart disease and so on in the subjects that ate red meat then I'll start actually considering some of the vegan horseshit out there as credible instead of misleading propaganda used to promote an agenda. Christ, if you treat every study out there as credible science then we should all be breatharians living off light and love and shunning any type of food.
                            Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own experience.

                            In the mind of the beginner, there are many possibilities; in the mind of the expert, there are few.


                            I've shaken hands with a raccoon and lived to tell the tale

                            SW: 220- 225 pounds at the beginning of January
                            CW: 180 pounds

                            Goals for 2012: Lose a bit more fat and start a serious muscle and strength routine

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Anonymouse View Post
                              First post here. Looking over the study, and it seems like a fair piece of science. There are a few glaring weaknesses, as others have pointed out; the diet was self-reported, meaning possible (or probable) inaccurate information, and it is unclear what lifestyle habits were controlled for. But putting these aside, I think what we need to pull from this study is that red meat does cause oxidative stress on the body, and grain-fed meat causes inflammation (o6 : o3). These clearly aren't problems in anyone who eats the occasional vegetable and takes their omega-3s, but it's a good warning.
                              I'll try not to be harsh, since it's your first post, but if grain-fed meat is dangerous due to O6, wouldn't that make a nut a bullet to the brain? Even grain-fed red meat have very little O6, compared to pretty much everything humans eat besides fish.
                              Lifting Journal

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Anonymouse View Post
                                First post here. Looking over the study, and it seems like a fair piece of science. There are a few glaring weaknesses, as others have pointed out; the diet was self-reported, meaning possible (or probable) inaccurate information, and it is unclear what lifestyle habits were controlled for. But putting these aside, I think what we need to pull from this study is that red meat does cause oxidative stress on the body, and grain-fed meat causes inflammation (o6 : o3). These clearly aren't problems in anyone who eats the occasional vegetable and takes their omega-3s, but it's a good warning.
                                Ok I almost called you out (well I did but I am editing it out but you made a good point The study never once mentions grain fed beef or omegas PUFAS, however, you could make the case that the rise in grain fed beef resulting in higher O6 content in red meat could be a major contributor to the CVD mentioned in the research. However, I am not sure sure based on my two points below:

                                I quote from the study: "The association between red meat and CVD mortality was moderately attenuated after further adjustment for saturated fat and cholesterol, suggesting a mediating role for these nutrients." Which basically says saturated fat and cholesterol was mildly protective to whatever else was causing the CVD. This is a mind blowing statement, because people have always accused those two items in red meat of causing CVD but here they essentially gloss over their own point that it is mildly protective. Well, if thats so, then WHAT in red meat could be causing CVD??? Higher O6 as someone mentioned?

                                Or...again could it be the unhealthy lifestyle, again quoting from the study:"Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index (Table 1). In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy but lower intakes of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables."

                                I rest my case.

                                EDIT: here is a link to the table data regarding lifestyle. It is mind blowing. It tells me the people dying from red meat are basically eating hamburgers every day and night in bars while smoking and drinking, obviously not getting exercise and not eating veggies.

                                http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...v1/IOI110027T1
                                Last edited by wildwabbit; 03-12-2012, 08:03 PM. Reason: Add link to table data

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X