Are Grain Fed Meats Damaging to One's Health? page

[XGrains]

All I read in the mainstream media is to eat more whole grains and less meat. In today's Parade Magazine there is a statement that people who eat whole grains for breakfast have a 28% reduction in heart failure, and there's a news story on CNN.com that eliminating meat, eggs, dairy and oils from one's diet can make them "heart attack proof". This statement came from a respected doctor at the Cleveland Clinic. Since meat is one of the foundations of The Primal Diet, I'd like for someone to explain something to me. Does the large quantity of red meat consumed on The Primal Diet not contribute to cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer because it is grass fed? Should grain fed meats always be avoided because they contribute to poor health? So it's not meat per se that contributes to increases in heart disease, prostate cancer, etc., but grain fed meat?

[Glamorama]

A lot of the research out there doesn't specify if participants would normally eat highly processed meats or nice grass fed like we do. It also doesn't state if the bad meats were consumed with tons of white bread or ketchup. Based on assumption we can say that a diet full of unprocessed natural foods is better than your average meat-consuming SAD-diet.

[ChocoTaco369]

Grain fed meats are fine. The benefits of grassfed red meat is that it contains more omega 3 fatty acids and more CLA than grain fed meat does. However, I can't justify the huge increase in cost for a small increase in nutrients. If you can afford it, go for it, but buying grassfed red meat is pretty much the last primal principle you need to worry about IMO. Cutting out grains and vegetable oils is far more important and will put you 90% ahead of the game.

That being said, these ridiculous studies linking red meat to heart issues are always ridiculous. Every single one has the same major flaw (well, major rigging that is) - the diets of people who eat lots of red meat tend to suck. People that eat more red meat on average eat more vegetable oil, more grains, more sugar - more EVERYTHING. It's not the red meat that's killing them. It's the fact they're getting their red meat at McDonald's and they're choking it down with a supersized Coke and a large french fry.

What these assholes running the studies do is purposely pick and choose the variable they want to criticize to support their agenda. Someone that eats 4,000 calories a day, no matter what it is, will probably be overweight unless they're an elite athlete . These studies are akin to taking said 4,000 calorie a day eater and saying "this guy eats more meat so meat must be bad." Well, he also eats more sugar, drinks more beer, eats more dairy, more grain, more soy, more processed frankenfoods...and you're singling out MEAT?

No, meat is not bad for you. Nearly all of us would be better off with more meat in our diets at the expense of other crap. It's like buying a frozen TV dinner and saying the meat is the problem. No, it's the soybean oil it was fried in, the wheat biscuit that's included and the sugar-soaked peaches on the side. The only thing edible in that little microwavable tray is that little bit of muscle meat under all that soybean oil-filled wheat breading.

Here's a great example of a "study" that came out last week trying to link red meat to Type 2 Diabetes.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-...diabetes-risk/

Completely bogus and Mark pretty much tears it so shreds. All you need to know is that grain farmers are subsidized by the government and there is seriously a massive government conspiracy against meat. It's pretty well-known that there is no causation between saturated fat/cholesterol and heart disease, but if the government changes its stance, it pisses off the agriculture lobby that contributes to their campaigns. If we remove the grain and vegetable oils produced by the grain farmers, then the healthcare/drug industry loses billions as our health improves. Then the politicians lose all that money from their lobbyists that contribute to their campaigns. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake and the government, the agricultural industry AND the healthcare industry/drug companies all profit from us being sick. This is why you see these studies. It's a massive, massive conspiracy and it makes my blood boil.

[Knifegill]

the government, the agricultural industry AND the healthcare industry/drug companies all profit from us being sick. This is why you see these studies. It's a massive, massive conspiracy and it makes my blood boil.

x2

[yodiewan]

I pretty much totally agree with Choco. Grassfed is pretty much the last "step" one should take in cleaning up the diet.

The recent post on human interference factor from Mark has me thinking again though: Human Interference Factor | Mark's Daily Apple

Especially the study where volunteers who ate 2 omega-6 eggs a day had 40% more oxidized LDL then the group eating eggs from hens on a low o-6 diet. I haven't looked at the study in detail, but it seems kinda hard to argue with on the surface. I think we all agree that oxidized LDL in the body is very bad. And the experiment design sounds pretty good. What do you guys think?

Edit: I read the article that the Mark linked to in his post and the omega-6 egg eaters had 40% higher "oxidizability", not actually 40% higher oxidized LDL. I want to look at the actual study itself to see what's going on.