New study states that animal protein and animal fat puts low-carbers at risk
just read this piece on the site of the NY Times.
I'd like to read the actual study, since the article seems to suggest that with animal fat and protein they mean processed animal meat.
I could go ahead and dismiss this as yet more CW nonsense, but it's important to stay critical and objective about this stuff.
Please share your thoughts about this.
I really question these studies. If you look at the life expectancy statistics based on countries, France is in the top 10, and the USA is down to almost 40. From what I have read, the French eat high fat diets with butter, meats, cream, etc. On top of that, more French per capita smoke cigarettes compared to Americans.
It really makes no sense.
"low-carb dieters" is a pretty vague term. They could be eating all kinds of franken-trash.
I just read bits of the study (as a college student I get access to most scientific journals : ) ) and it seems the researchers aligned red meat and processed meat. The survey stated something like 'How many servings of red and/or processed meat do you have daily?'
In english, the study didn't distinguish a hotdog from a grass-fed steak
The nurses health study is a huge collection of data that can be filtered and manipulated in any number of ways. A lot of researchers have interpreted the data to favor their desired outcome over the years. There are no catagories for Organic free-range meat in their questionaire. Many are eating Oscar-Meyer hot dogs and calling it meat.
This article is so disingenuous mixing processed foods with 'red meat' . there are so many contradictions within that alone - what about white meat such as chicken or pork! And it goes on to talk about a 20% lower risk rate to those eating beans and nuts. 'Those who adhered most closely to a low-carb regimen was 12 percent higher over about two decades than with those who consumed diets higher in carbohydrates.
But death rates varied, depending on the sources of protein and fat used to displace carbohydrates. Low-carb eaters who drew more protein and fat from vegetable sources like beans and nuts were 20 percent less likely to die over the period than people who ate a high-carbohydrate diet.
But low-carb dieters who got most of their protein and fat from animal sources like red and processed meats were 14 percent more likely to die of heart disease and 28 percent more likely to die of cancer, the analysis found.'
I think that to suggest conclusions from contaminated data such as this is misguided at best.
Last edited by PJT13; 09-15-2010 at 09:24 AM.
I am tired of studies and doctors saying this or that. I enjoy what I eat now and how I feel. I am just going to leave it at that. If I die 5 years earlier than I would have, so be it.
Which means twitching every time some article in a newspaper confidently asserts something of this sort? Or should I say "quite confidently" - there's a "may" inserted there.
Originally Posted by Tommy D
I'll wait until these people can explain for me why the Eskimos didn't get heart disease or cancer on their traditional diet, why the same seems to have been true of African cattle herders. I'll wait for them to explain to me why the rates of these diseases - myocardial infarction was virtually unknown in the U.S. before 1920 - have gone up as the consumption of animal fat has fallen. I'll wait for them to explain to me why the kind of diet most humans have eaten over a truly vast space of time - probably something like two million years - is supposed to be bad for me, whereas foods that arrived only yesterday in comparative terms are supposed to be just what I need.
Asked the very pertinent question why the rates of these diseases have not fallen in the U.S. when people have been eating low fat - as directed by know-it-alls who didn't do their homework; big boobies with university chairs (to use a phrase of Weber's) - someone at the Public Health Unit at Harvard University replied, "It was only a hypothesis". Not much of an apology, is it?
And yet we're still supposed to twitch every time something like this is asserted in the press. Why?
Bunk "study", the more I see the crap science that backs CW Low fat/high grain agenda the more SOLID my take on Paleo/Primal nutrition becomes.
You guys are right.
I should've known better