Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 110

Thread: Huge study shows red meat boosts risk of dying young page 9

  1. #81
    SkinnyMinnie's Avatar
    SkinnyMinnie is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2
    Primal Fuel
    When I first started eating low carb, I had HORRIBLE problems with beef. I went and did some research on the internet and the consensus was you have to eat the grass fed beef. So I spent a little extra money and started eating the grass fed beef. I started having all kinds of health problems including liver and chest pains. Please keep in mind I eat very small cuts of meat. Anyway it finally dawned on me that it didn't matter if I ate the grass fed or regular supermarket variety beef. I believe the problem is the body can't handle all that excess iron. I remember reading an article years ago stating that excess iron in the body can cause all kinds of health problems including cancer and heart disease. I no longer eat red meat and don't plan on eating it ever again. I do believe the study in question is probably accurate and that most people should greatly limit the amount of red meat they eat or simply don't eat it at all.

  2. #82
    activia's Avatar
    activia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Near Boston MA
    Posts
    2,198
    Chris Kresser just posted this about this study:

    "A classic problem at the intersection of science and the media is a misunderstanding of correlation and causation that is unfortunately passed on to the masses. This graphic is both hysterical in its absurdity, and highly effective at explaining what all this is about. "Need to prove something you already believe? Statistics are easy: All you need are two graphs and a leading question. Correlation may not imply causation, but it sure can help us insinuate it."

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8342540&type=3
    Primal since March 2011

    Female/29 years old/5' 1"/130ish lbs

  3. #83
    wildwabbit's Avatar
    wildwabbit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinnyMinnie View Post
    When I first started eating low carb, I had HORRIBLE problems with beef. I went and did some research on the internet and the consensus was you have to eat the grass fed beef. So I spent a little extra money and started eating the grass fed beef. I started having all kinds of health problems including liver and chest pains. Please keep in mind I eat very small cuts of meat. Anyway it finally dawned on me that it didn't matter if I ate the grass fed or regular supermarket variety beef. I believe the problem is the body can't handle all that excess iron. I remember reading an article years ago stating that excess iron in the body can cause all kinds of health problems including cancer and heart disease. I no longer eat red meat and don't plan on eating it ever again. I do believe the study in question is probably accurate and that most people should greatly limit the amount of red meat they eat or simply don't eat it at all.
    It is very rare one hears of someone having such a reaction to beef. Could it be that you have a rare food intolerance to beef? Not sure you can generalize your reaction to a large population since it is, well, seems to be extremely rare.

  4. #84
    activia's Avatar
    activia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Near Boston MA
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by wildwabbit View Post
    It is very rare one hears of someone having such a reaction to beef. Could it be that you have a rare food intolerance to beef? Not sure you can generalize your reaction to a large population since it is, well, seems to be extremely rare.
    You also may have been missing some other nutrients that actually bind to iron so it doesnt all get absorbed.. a complementary nutrient. Excess iron is a problem. Were you taking any multi-vitamins that had iron in it? I can't remember exactly but Chris Kresser was talking about that condition in one of his podcasts. He did have a treatment for it.
    Primal since March 2011

    Female/29 years old/5' 1"/130ish lbs

  5. #85
    cori93437's Avatar
    cori93437 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,949
    Quote Originally Posted by wildwabbit View Post
    It is very rare one hears of someone having such a reaction to beef. Could it be that you have a rare food intolerance to beef? Not sure you can generalize your reaction to a large population since it is, well, seems to be extremely rare.
    This...
    I eat red meat (beef/goat/lamb/venison) at least 3 times a week and have to make sure to also eat liver to avoid anemia.

    My entire family has eaten this way for as long as I can remember and no one has ever gotten too much iron...
    Even in cultures where blood is regularly consumed such as in blood/black sausage (have you SEEN the iron content of Beef blood... wow!)... I know there is an asian culture (forgive me I can't recall which one atm) that traditionally eats raw duck blood (supposedly even higher in iron than beef blood but hard to find nutritional data on) on a weekly basis... with no iron overload. (I need to remember to try this next time I've got a live duck on my hands.)

    So, I'm not buying it that too much Iron is a normal issue.
    Last edited by cori93437; 03-13-2012 at 08:48 AM.
    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.


  6. #86
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    I have a friend who has problems with too much iron, but it's very rare. Worryingly, it can look like anemia, so some people with it end up being given iron supplements and end up very ill. It's a rare condition, but it is real, so the poster above may have a similar issue.

    As for confounding factors, I don't see any discussion of sugar intake, which I would want to see considering the growing body of evidence that sugar consumption is linked to a number of health conditions. If the red meat group represents people who are less health conscious overall, then there is a reasonable possibility that their sugar intake is also higher. Since that was not controlled for, it's hard to say whether that might also be playing a role.

    Additionally, as I noted above, there's an overall difference in caloric intake between the quintile groups, which I don't see discussed as a confounding variable. Since we know that caloric restriction also plays a role in longevity, I'm surprised that difference isn't addressed anywhere in the discussion.

    They appear to have considered pork to be red meat--they quite clearly consider ham, hot dogs, and bacon to be processed red meat. Their categories seem to be broken out based on mammal/non-mammal as the distinction between red meat and other meats since they specifically refer to poultry and fish as the substitution for red meat.
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  7. #87
    PeacefulWarrior's Avatar
    PeacefulWarrior is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    145
    I realise a lot of you guys think that "conventional wisdom" is a load of bollocks, but I certainly do not. I strongly believe in science, and that includes contemporary medical science. It's a lot more reliable than gym-junkie pseudo-science.
    Unfortunately much of "science" is complete bunk. Just as worthless as the "gym junkie pseudo science" you refer to. But people who believe in what they consider "science" somehow think that makes them intellects, and allows them to feel better about themselves.

    Nikolai Bogduk, MD is considered to be the man who established the "gold standard" for evidence based research. I believe by his research less than 1% of published, peer reviewed research meets this gold standard. 99% of all the crap you read is just people/organizations/corporations pushing their own agenda, under the pretense of science.

    This red meat study is a prime example. Is it red meat, or is it red meat that has been raised in a manner that goes against the laws of nature, and real science. Wasnt it your beloved "science" that came to the conclusion we could pump out a lot more red meat by pumping it full of really healthy antibiotics (made by men of science), and hormones (again, deemed to be safe by who?), fed crap instead of grass (a diet deemed to be healthy men these same men of science you hold up on a pedestal)...

    I'm sorry, but your science is just as bogus as the "gym junkie science" you refer to. But in the case of the gym junkies, most people know to take those conversations with a grain of salt.

    Your "science" is incapable of using common sense, and believes itself to be smarter than the laws of nature. Only men of "science" could justify poisoning the shit out of our water supply (flouride is really healthy, right?), food supply (GMO's, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics etc...), air supply, and now a furious assault on our bodies (hormones, antibiotics, painkillers that do nothing but get you high, recommend a diet that has nothing at all to do with nourishing our bodies, chopping out bodyparts whenever they cant figure out what drug or surgery to prescribe next...)

    Much of the "science" you hold in such high regard isnt fit to line the bottom of my birdcage with. But for the man lacking in self esteem, if you refer to yourself as a man of science you can at least tell yourself, and others like you that are equally brainwashed,(that is what Mark kindly refers to as CW, isnt it?) that you are in fact an "intellectual", right?
    "Your actions speak to me so loud, I can not hear a single word you are saying."

  8. #88
    SkinnyMinnie's Avatar
    SkinnyMinnie is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by activia View Post
    You also may have been missing some other nutrients that actually bind to iron so it doesnt all get absorbed.. a complementary nutrient. Excess iron is a problem. Were you taking any multi-vitamins that had iron in it? I can't remember exactly but Chris Kresser was talking about that condition in one of his podcasts. He did have a treatment for it.
    Thanks activia! I had never heard of Chris Kresser. I just came from his website and apparently he is having an entire symposium devoted to iron overload. He says it's an under-diagnosed phenomenon and that it can impact blood sugar regulation and male reproductive health. I know when I ate beef I had the WORST PMS of my life, but I won't go into details. Also, for the record there are PLENTY of people who have reactions to beef, if you are not one of them then consider yourself lucky.
    Last edited by SkinnyMinnie; 03-13-2012 at 09:11 AM.

  9. #89
    NWPrimate's Avatar
    NWPrimate is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinnyMinnie View Post
    I know when I ate beef I had the WORST PMS of my life, but I won't go into details.
    The Drs Eades profess that iron overload is almost a non-issue with menstruating women as the blood loss is effective at removing excess iron. They contend that our iron overload is the product of no longer having parasites that consume our blood and the iron associated with that.

    I think most people would be better of sticking with their red meat and donating blood once in a while. It's insurance against iron overload, and obviously a nice thing to do.

  10. #90
    dbalch's Avatar
    dbalch is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA USA
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by PeacefulWarrior View Post
    Your "science" is incapable of using common sense, and believes itself to be smarter than the laws of nature. Only men of "science" could justify poisoning the shit out of our water supply (flouride is really healthy, right?), food supply (GMO's, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics etc...), air supply, and now a furious assault on our bodies (hormones, antibiotics, painkillers that do nothing but get you high, recommend a diet that has nothing at all to do with nourishing our bodies, chopping out bodyparts whenever they cant figure out what drug or surgery to prescribe next...)
    Exactly.

    You left out all the statins, blood pressure drugs, "depression" drugs and God knows what else. "Science" also determines what blood pressure and cholesterol levels are "normal". Redefining the range of "normal" blood pressure by 10 points lower is worth billions of dollars to big pharma. It's a thoroughly corrupt system and all "studies" should be viewed with high suspicion. And where does the media earn its money? From advertising. Who are the biggest advertisers? Food and pharma companies. The FDA? Bought and paid for my friends.
    Last edited by dbalch; 03-13-2012 at 09:43 AM.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •