Death from red meat; another study

[QUOTE=bdilla;1011116]We worship many false idols in this media culture. [/QUOTE]
I was supposed to say this. She is probably one of the reasons I don't have TV. Watching the same show "Now I am fat, now I thin" for decades isn't fun.

So these conclusions were based on questionnaires??? Completely unreliable method of scientific study if you ask me...people guestimating what they ate and in what portions. And then to claim eating 1/2 as much would increase health. Based on what? Another guess? I didn't see the original article but none of this reads as very scientific to me.

[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1011091]This is all correlation BS. Red meat has been demonized for 40 years in this country. Most people think red meat is unhealthy (even though it's the healthiest). Therefore, people that eat the most red meat tend to care the least about their health. People that eat the most read meat:

1.) Smoke more.
2.) Exercise less.
3.) Eat more takeout and less fresh fruits and vegetables.
4.) Are more likely to be overweight.

I submit that THESE are the reasons why these people die earlier deaths. The red meat is the only thing keeping them alive (sorta like Paula Deen and butter).[/QUOTE]

They do account for these variables in some studies and they still come up with about a 15% risk, which isn't overly significant. It could probably be explained by the carcinogens from the way people bbq their meat or the iron factor. Check your serum ferritin, donate some blood and don't overly cook you're meat and you should be fine.

[QUOTE=Forgotmylastusername;1011352]They do account for these variables in some studies and they still come up with about a 15% risk, which isn't overly significant. It could probably be explained by the carcinogens from the way people bbq their meat or the iron factor.[/QUOTE]

They [B]try[/B] to account for these variables. There is no way of knowing how valid their guestimations are. I'm not all that confident in their ability to come up with valid adjustments.

[QUOTE=Forgotmylastusername;1011352]They do account for these variables in some studies and they still come up with about a 15% risk, which isn't overly significant. It could probably be explained by the carcinogens from the way people bbq their meat or the iron factor. Check your serum ferritin, donate some blood and don't overly cook you're meat and you should be fine.[/QUOTE]
Call me a skeptic, but I don't consider any numerical calculations remotely accurate in fatally flawed studies centered solely around correlation with no causative evidence.

I should also note I sear the ever living hell out of my steak. I cook the outside on a cast iron skillet I've heated in the oven at 500 degrees F. For a grand total of 4 minutes - 1 minute top side, 1 minute bottom side, toss it in for 4 minutes. My outsides are charred, the insides still have a hint of purple and are probably less than rare. That's how I like it. There's something about cooking a ribeye, filet mignon or New York strip at a low temperature that just hurts me inside.

I don't consider it solid evidence either but it seems to seems to be a reoccurring theme in a lot of studies so I wouldn't rule it out.

Ron krauss talked about a trial study that showed the high beef and sat fat group dieters had some increased risk markers that weren't present in their other high fat trials.
[url=http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/04/17/ron-krauss-saturated-fat-red-meat-it-depends/]Ron Krauss – Saturated Fat? Red Meat? It Depends . . . | Me and My Diabetes[/url]

It also seems to be a reoccurring them that as the government, drug companies and doctors give out more and more healthcare advice, we develop more and more diseases. I will continue to ignore the general healthcare advice of my doctor and government and simply sticking to whole foods my body recognizes, regular brief but intense exercise and regular exposure to fresh air and sunshine. It seems to be working so far, so why change it?

I posted this because it was in the 'most emailed' list in the NYTimes a few days ago. I did not look at the date on the article, which says March 12th! I thought it was a new study, but it's the old one. It's still #4 on the seven days most popular email list, so someone is messing around there.

As for my research, I feel particularly alive this morning after eating a package of Niman Ranch Corned Beef last night. That stuff is like the cake of beef land! Looking forward to dying from my breakfast of bacon.

Another recurring theme in such studies is linking "redandprocessedmeats" as if they were one word. I have yet to see such a study that isolated just unprocessed whole meat. So, if you are comparing people who live on bologna sandwiches with people who eat salmon and broccoli well obviously that skews the conclusions.

I like to cook my steaks at very low temperature. I stick a thermometer in them and the oven turns off when the internal temperature is 100 degrees. That's not even cooked. In fact, when I remove the steak from the oven, it's as red as it went in and has this leathery look. Then I sear them. Sometimes my steak is so raw on the inside I can barely bite through the meat. Fortunately, meat doesn't really need to be masticated to be digested.

I have to tell you that when I eat a steak like this, I feel energized. It's good, healthy food.

And yeah, read that study again and you'll probably see that they considered processed meat and red meat to be one and the same. I'm sorry but a hunk of nearly raw grass fed (or even grain fed) beef is NOT the same as a bologna sandwich.