Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how much red meat

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by peril View Post
    Those red meat = cancer studies are all observational. All observational studies can do is point to potential blind, controlled studies (as much as can be done with diet). But very few studies get funded because there is no commercial imperative. In the meantime, suggest you followup on all of the commentary on those studies. The conclusions are not as simple as may appear
    I do agree. I have a degree in science and did some modules on nutrition.

    The problem with these kinds of studies is that they don't particularly tell us that red meat is the culprit. We know that the people that supposedly ate more red meat than the other people developed more cancer but we don't know about their other food intakes or their other lifestyle choices. It's not something that would hold up in a court of law BUT it is something to think about and I wouldn't immediately dismiss it either. Isn't it best to err on the side of caution and just not take as much red meat just in case??

    In my opinion, yes.

    Comment


    • #17
      Rebuttal to "red meat = cancer": Flawed Red Meat Study: You Are What Your Food Ate | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

      "We see a number of big problems with this study.

      First, the study was conducted over a very long period of time (28 years for women, 22 years for men) by sending out food questionnaires every four years. Self-reporting, much less every four years, is not a reliable method of data gathering.

      Second, and even more importantly, the study did not differentiate between organic, grass-fed beef, and non-organic, CAFO-raised beef. As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out, the nutritive value of the each is very different!

      Because of the conditions and the grain-based feed used in factory farms, conventional beef may contain over twenty times the amount of omega-6 fatty acids (associated with arthritis, chronic inflammation, and cancer) than healthful omega-3 fatty acids (which help blood circulation, reduce inflammation, and strengthen the heart). By contrast, grass-fed beef typically has nearly seven times more omega-3s than omega-6s."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by paul900 View Post
        I do agree. I have a degree in science and did some modules on nutrition.

        The problem with these kinds of studies is that they don't particularly tell us that red meat is the culprit. We know that the people that supposedly ate more red meat than the other people developed more cancer but we don't know about their other food intakes or their other lifestyle choices. It's not something that would hold up in a court of law BUT it is something to think about and I wouldn't immediately dismiss it either. Isn't it best to err on the side of caution and just not take as much red meat just in case??

        In my opinion, yes.
        Your advice to "err on the side of caution" is a little different than your initial warning "you should limit..." BTW, since you can find multiple studies linking virtually every food available to cancer, CVD, dementia, diabetes, etc, etc, etc, I guess we should always err of the side of caution and slowly starve ourselves to death.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by paul900 View Post
          You should limit the amount of red meat consumed. It's ok to consume it but not with any great regularity. Studies have linked it to colon cancer

          Red meat and colon cancer

          "Although the results vary, studies from around the world have suggested that a high consumption of meat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer. In all cases the worry is confined to red meat, not chicken.

          The best evidence comes from a pair of large 2005 studies, one from Europe, the other from the United States. The European research tracked 478,000 men and women who were free of cancer when the study began. The people who ate the most red meat (about 5 ounces a day or more) were about a third more likely to develop colon cancer than those who ate the least red meat (less than an ounce a day on average). Their consumption of chicken did not influence risk one way or the other, but a high consumption of fish appeared to reduce the risk of colon cancer by about a third.

          The U.S. study added important information about the effects of long-term meat consumption. The subjects were 148,610 people between the ages of 50 and 74. A high consumption of red and processed meats was linked with a substantial increase in the risk of cancer in the lower colon and rectum. Conversely, the long-term consumption of large amounts of fish and poultry appeared protective.

          These two studies are impressive, and they don’t stand alone. A meta-analysis of 29 studies of meat consumption and colon cancer concluded that a high consumption of red meat increases risk by 28%, and a high consumption of processed meat increases risk by 20%."
          nonsense! what would grok do
          Paleo since November 2011 - Carnivore since June 2012
          Before and after pics
          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread65846.html
          Primal Sucess Story
          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread65400.html
          Primal Journal
          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...tml#post955444

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by paul900 View Post
            man how am i a troll? i have provided EVIDENCE there of studies performed. I'm not taking this stuff out of my ass.

            Not everyone that presents a contrary point is a troll. Are all the researchers who did the studies trolls too? I suppose the 478,000 participants were also trolls?

            We can disagree without name calling.
            This is the relevant phrase in your quoted study:

            red and processed meats
            Because they did not separate the fresh meat from the processed meat, which contains sugar, msg, nitrates and other chemicals, the research is not valid. Go find some research where people at only fresh meat.

            These associative studies are never valid. Too many confounding variables.
            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by paul900 View Post
              man how am i a troll? i have provided EVIDENCE there of studies performed. I'm not taking this stuff out of my ass.

              Not everyone that presents a contrary point is a troll. Are all the researchers who did the studies trolls too? I suppose the 478,000 participants were also trolls?

              We can disagree without name calling.
              From the study "it does not prove that red meat causes cancer. None of the cells were malignant, and the body has a series of mechanisms to repair damaged DNA."

              As for the large study that was referenced I believe that included processed meats in form of McDonalds and other meats cooked with processed oils and would have included the bun etc.

              I guess we should just eat buckwheat instead!?!
              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
              PS
              Don't forget to play!

              Comment


              • #22
                Observational studies have no validity. For example take John. John doesn't really care about his health. He eats a lot of red meat and saturated fat (which we are told is bad for you) or whatever he feels like, including a high processed carb, high sugar diet. He also doesn't exercise, he drinks and he smokes. He is also overweight due to his lifestyle choices. Not surprisingly, John has a lot of health issues.

                Then take Jack. Jack cares about his health, so he doesn't eat a lot of red meat and saturated fats, and eats mostly white meat like chicken and fish, because he is told they are good for him. He exercises regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. Not surprisingly, Jack doesn't have many health issues.

                A group of researchers ask Jack and John, and many others to fill out a questionnaire to see if high consumption of red meat and saturated fat is related to health problems. They conclude that people who eat red meat and saturated fats are more likely to be unhealthy.

                At no point did the researchers ask what other foods they ate, how often they exercised, if they drank or smoked heavily, and if they were overweight.

                What i have said describes a vast majority of "research" done on saturated fats and red meat. Correlation does not equate to causation.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Lukey View Post
                  Correlation does not equate to causation.
                  ^^THIS^^

                  observational studies are basically lazy, junk science, generally only good for another headline of "zomg!!!!! this food will kill you!!!" "zomg!!! THIS food will kill you!!!!!" repeat.
                  As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                  Ernest Hemingway

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by paul900 View Post
                    You should limit the amount of red meat consumed. It's ok to consume it but not with any great regularity. Studies have linked it to colon cancer

                    Red meat and colon cancer

                    The best evidence comes from a pair of large 2005 studies, one from Europe, the other from the United States. The European research tracked 478,000 men and women who were free of cancer when the study began. The people who ate the most red meat (about 5 ounces a day or more) were about a third more likely to develop colon cancer than those who ate the least red meat (less than an ounce a day on average). Their consumption of chicken did not influence risk one way or the other, but a high consumption of fish appeared to reduce the risk of colon cancer by about a third.
                    ."
                    I wonder how much of that beef was consumed with a bun, ketchup, a side of fries and a coke.

                    People who regularly consume fish and boneless skinless chicken *typically* are making a conscious effort to eat healthier overall.
                    Sandra
                    *My obligatory intro

                    There are no cheat days. There are days when you eat primal and days you don't. As soon as you label a day a cheat day, you're on a diet. Don't be on a diet. ~~ Fernaldo

                    DAINTY CAN KISS MY PRIMAL BACKSIDE. ~~ Crabcakes

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sandra in BC View Post
                      I wonder how much of that beef was consumed with a bun, ketchup, a side of fries and a coke.

                      People who regularly consume fish and boneless skinless chicken *typically* are making a conscious effort to eat healthier overall.
                      Exactly.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Lukey View Post
                        Observational studies have no validity. For example take John. John doesn't really care about his health. He eats a lot of red meat and saturated fat (which we are told is bad for you) or whatever he feels like, including a high processed carb, high sugar diet. He also doesn't exercise, he drinks and he smokes. He is also overweight due to his lifestyle choices. Not surprisingly, John has a lot of health issues.

                        Then take Jack. Jack cares about his health, so he doesn't eat a lot of red meat and saturated fats, and eats mostly white meat like chicken and fish, because he is told they are good for him. He exercises regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. Not surprisingly, Jack doesn't have many health issues.

                        A group of researchers ask Jack and John, and many others to fill out a questionnaire to see if high consumption of red meat and saturated fat is related to health problems. They conclude that people who eat red meat and saturated fats are more likely to be unhealthy.

                        At no point did the researchers ask what other foods they ate, how often they exercised, if they drank or smoked heavily, and if they were overweight.

                        What i have said describes a vast majority of "research" done on saturated fats and red meat. Correlation does not equate to causation.
                        Well said!
                        Evolutionary. Ideology that fits biology

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sandra in BC View Post
                          I wonder how much of that beef was consumed with a bun, ketchup, a side of fries and a coke.

                          People who regularly consume fish and boneless skinless chicken *typically* are making a conscious effort to eat healthier overall.
                          True, too many unknowns. And what oil were they cooking with?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Lukey View Post
                            Observational studies have no validity. For example take John. John doesn't really care about his health. He eats a lot of red meat and saturated fat (which we are told is bad for you) or whatever he feels like, including a high processed carb, high sugar diet. He also doesn't exercise, he drinks and he smokes. He is also overweight due to his lifestyle choices. Not surprisingly, John has a lot of health issues.

                            Then take Jack. Jack cares about his health, so he doesn't eat a lot of red meat and saturated fats, and eats mostly white meat like chicken and fish, because he is told they are good for him. He exercises regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. Not surprisingly, Jack doesn't have many health issues.

                            A group of researchers ask Jack and John, and many others to fill out a questionnaire to see if high consumption of red meat and saturated fat is related to health problems. They conclude that people who eat red meat and saturated fats are more likely to be unhealthy.

                            At no point did the researchers ask what other foods they ate, how often they exercised, if they drank or smoked heavily, and if they were overweight.

                            What i have said describes a vast majority of "research" done on saturated fats and red meat. Correlation does not equate to causation.
                            Actually it's (hopefully) not done like that. They do ask about other health choices people make and then use statistical "corrections" for this. That's called "controlling for" extraneous variables. The problem is that diet and lifestyle are very complex and it's extremely hard to control for all relevant variables (and their interactions) in a real world study involving humans. So in theory you are wrong but in practice you are right.
                            If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              OP: eat all the red meat you want, especially properly raised stuff. It's great for your health, makes you feel awesome, and keeps you from getting the munchies all the time.
                              If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tfarny View Post
                                Actually it's (hopefully) not done like that. They do ask about other health choices people make and then use statistical "corrections" for this. That's called "controlling for" extraneous variables. The problem is that diet and lifestyle are very complex and it's extremely hard to control for all relevant variables (and their interactions) in a real world study involving humans. So in theory you are wrong but in practice you are right.
                                Did you read the studies? At no point did they mention other foods other than the meat. They just say the people who ate the most red meat had the biggest chance of getting cancer, they didn't mention what other foods they were eating or lifestyle choices they made. In the other study, they put people on a high red meat diet, a vegetarian and a high red meat high fiber diet. At no point did they specify what other foods they ate. I seriously doubt it was an all meat diet, let alone good quality grass-fed meat. They also had no mention of lifestyle choices. I'm not saying your wrong, they should account for extraneous variables, but it most cases, including those studies, they don't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X