Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: New study smashing red meat consumption! Your thoughts? page

  1. #1
    Zed's Avatar
    Zed
    Zed is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    341

    New study smashing red meat consumption! Your thoughts?

    Primal Fuel

  2. #2
    Kharnath's Avatar
    Kharnath is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Sihana View Post
    But really, it is just best to ignore all these studies, especially when it is published by mass media.
    Ignorance is never the answer.
    Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

  3. #3
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,083
    Only ignore studies that do not support your interests.

  4. #4
    sixpack-rc's Avatar
    sixpack-rc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    119
    Mark does say to avoid charring meat to avoid toxins. Seems like this study is in line with PB. Although I don't give the study much credence.

    Basically they took a group of 500 people who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a similar group of people who hadn't and then asked them about their dietary habits. The study was controlled for known links to cancer such as genetics, smoking, etc...which means obviously that the study was not controlled for *unsuspected* carcinogens. Specifically for things like inflammation from wheat and the artificial flavoring and coloring agents that fast food places add to their buns.

    ~rc

  5. #5
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Here's the part that has me scratching my head:

    Men who ate the most ground beef were 2.3 times more likely than men who ate none to have aggressive prostate cancer. Higher consumption of fatty lunchmeats (such as salami) and liver was also associated with an increase in cancer risk. On the other hand, poultry, bacon, and low-fat hot dogs and sausages appeared to have little influence on cancer risk.
    First, ground beef can be anywhere from something like 5% fat up to however much you want, so their whole "fatty meats" theory doesn't apply.

    Second, how can you say salami is fatty and terrible but bacon is lean and fine. Huh???

    Third, when did liver become Satan's Delight? It's good for you!

    Fourth - holy crap, if you're eating lowfat hot dogs, you have bigger problems than I can help with.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  6. #6
    astronmr20's Avatar
    astronmr20 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    242
    Grain-fed or grass-fed?

    That question should discredit the study right there.

  7. #7
    Petra's Avatar
    Petra is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Guangzhou China
    Posts
    23
    Well it has to be said, there is a risk to living: you will die.

    Grilled meat has some dangers. Well done meat has those also.
    I just think this editorial is not giving me enough dept to change lifestyle....

    And I'm just eating the way I feel is right.....with a glass of Merlot of the side.
    Petra

  8. #8
    alexdc's Avatar
    alexdc is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    37
    From the study:

    Quote Originally Posted by Article View Post
    The men who preferred their burgers well-done had double the cancer risk, while those who liked them medium (or rarer) had a negligible increase in risk -- just 12 percent. A similar pattern was seen with grilled or barbecued steak.
    So, this is really a load of bullshit. The article starts off by pointing a finger toward red meat, and then goes to show that only those who ate red meat that was well done or grilled actually had an increased risk of getting cancer. Then it goes on to say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Article View Post
    Men who ate the most ground beef were 2.3 times more likely than men who ate none to have aggressive prostate cancer. Higher consumption of fatty lunchmeats (such as salami) and liver was also associated with an increase in cancer risk.
    Pointing out that PROCESSED FOOD, not RED MEAT increases your cancer risk.

    On top of all this, the study relied entirely on the memory and reports of the patients, that alone makes it completely meaningless.

    So what does this "study" say? Don't eat overcooked or processed food, it might cause cancer. I could of told you that without a multi-million dollar government grant.

  9. #9
    marqueemoon's Avatar
    marqueemoon is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by alexdc View Post
    From the study:



    So, this is really a load of bullshit. The article starts off by pointing a finger toward red meat, and then goes to show that only those who ate red meat that was well done or grilled actually had an increased risk of getting cancer. Then it goes on to say:



    Pointing out that PROCESSED FOOD, not RED MEAT increases your cancer risk.

    On top of all this, the study relied entirely on the memory and reports of the patients, that alone makes it completely meaningless.

    So what does this "study" say? Don't eat overcooked or processed food, it might cause cancer. I could of told you that without a multi-million dollar government grant.
    Yeah, but everyone would rightly peg you as a fucktard when they read "could of" instead of "could have".

    Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
    No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.

  10. #10
    jimpag's Avatar
    jimpag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by marqueemoon View Post
    Anyway I really don't understand the trend here of "ZOMG a study that doesn't agree with what Mark tells us, quick, rip it to shreds before the cognitive dissonance makes my tiny brain explode!" You guys realise that fruitarian and vegan forums do the exact same thing with studies that contradict what they think? And that we bitch about that, too? So what makes us so different here?
    No wonder some people think primal is some weird dietary cult. That's cultish behaviour if I ever saw it.
    Dude, if you dont realize the difference between this forum and say the fruitarian forum that we dont want to name I dont know what to tell you. This is by far the most analytic, critisicing and investigating forum Ive ever read when it comes to diet and lifestyle.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •