Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Medical Journal article

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

  • British Medical Journal article

    Reining in red meat consumption cuts chronic disease risk and carbon footprint — BMJ Group

    I wonder how meat can trigger diabete. Any hints?

  • #2
    Yay for garbage sci3nce.

    Comment


    • #3
      The study discussed the effect of decreasing "red and processed meat." Maybe it is the reduction of processed food that provides the health benefit as opposed to the reduction of red meat.
      It's just another day in paradise
      As you stumble to your bed
      You'd give anything to silence
      Those voices ringing in your head
      You thought you could find happiness
      Just over that green hill
      You thought you would be satisfied
      But you never will-
      Learn to be still
      -The Eagles

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, I have always wondered why a piece of red meat, say a strip loin steak, could be bad for you in comparison to a chicken breast. I mean no one ever explains what the mechanism is that makes the steak worse than chicken. 'Cause it doesn't exist.
        Female, age 51, 5' 9"
        SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

        Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
        2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by primal_alex View Post
          The methane business seems to be nonsense. Either plants rot and methane is released, or a similar process happens in cows' stomachs. Same thing either way. What are we supposed to do? Drain all the wetlands? And look at the number of bison in North America before the buffalo hunters really got going. Weren't they farting? Someone's got it in for cows, but it just doesn't add up.

          The red meat thing probably comes from epidemiological data -- I have to admit I had only skimmed the BMJ article before my eyes began to glaze over with boredom, so I can't say for sure. Anyway, that's questionable, too.

          It's a genuine enough correlation but ... correlation is not causality. If you spend fifty years haranguing people not to eat food X (in this case red meat, thought to be dangerous because of Ancel Keys's flawed "study") then the people who will take absolutely no notice of you are also the people who will smoke, drink to excess, and eat a large fries with it. Gary Taubes explains it better than I ever could:

          Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Periwinkle View Post
            The study discussed the effect of decreasing "red and processed meat." Maybe it is the reduction of processed food that provides the health benefit as opposed to the reduction of red meat.
            This is exactly what is wrong with all of the studies such as this.

            Comment


            • #7
              This sounds like it is part of that old study...most of the meat is processed burgers etc....guess there is no way it could be the bun and soda that goes with it
              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
              PS
              Don't forget to play!

              Comment


              • #8
                [QUOTE=Lewis;950439]The methane business seems to be nonsense. Either plants rot and methane is released, or a similar process happens in cows' stomachs. Same thing either way. What are we supposed to do? Drain all the wetlands? And look at the number of bison in North America before the buffalo hunters really got going. Weren't they farting? Someone's got it in for cows, but it just doesn't add up. [/]

                Most of those gassy studies were produced with feedlot cattle. I'm willing to bet that grassfed critters eating a normal range of varied greenery have superior intestinal health to grainfed critters. AAMOF, I'll bet we all know people with bad digestion have severe flatulence problems, and I'm also betting their diets are not optimal nor anywhere near.

                Comment

                Working...
                X