Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: British Medical Journal article page

  1. #1
    primal_alex's Avatar
    primal_alex is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Geneva (Switzerland)
    Posts
    178

    British Medical Journal article

    Shop Now

  2. #2
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,728
    Yay for garbage sci3nce.

  3. #3
    Periwinkle's Avatar
    Periwinkle is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    133
    The study discussed the effect of decreasing "red and processed meat." Maybe it is the reduction of processed food that provides the health benefit as opposed to the reduction of red meat.
    It's just another day in paradise
    As you stumble to your bed
    You'd give anything to silence
    Those voices ringing in your head
    You thought you could find happiness
    Just over that green hill
    You thought you would be satisfied
    But you never will-
    Learn to be still
    -The Eagles

  4. #4
    jojohaligo's Avatar
    jojohaligo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wet Coast of Canada
    Posts
    759
    Yes, I have always wondered why a piece of red meat, say a strip loin steak, could be bad for you in comparison to a chicken breast. I mean no one ever explains what the mechanism is that makes the steak worse than chicken. 'Cause it doesn't exist.
    Female, age 51, 5' 9"
    SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

    Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
    2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

  5. #5
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by primal_alex View Post
    The methane business seems to be nonsense. Either plants rot and methane is released, or a similar process happens in cows' stomachs. Same thing either way. What are we supposed to do? Drain all the wetlands? And look at the number of bison in North America before the buffalo hunters really got going. Weren't they farting? Someone's got it in for cows, but it just doesn't add up.

    The red meat thing probably comes from epidemiological data -- I have to admit I had only skimmed the BMJ article before my eyes began to glaze over with boredom, so I can't say for sure. Anyway, that's questionable, too.

    It's a genuine enough correlation but ... correlation is not causality. If you spend fifty years haranguing people not to eat food X (in this case red meat, thought to be dangerous because of Ancel Keys's flawed "study") then the people who will take absolutely no notice of you are also the people who will smoke, drink to excess, and eat a large fries with it. Gary Taubes explains it better than I ever could:

    Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat

  6. #6
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
    The study discussed the effect of decreasing "red and processed meat." Maybe it is the reduction of processed food that provides the health benefit as opposed to the reduction of red meat.
    This is exactly what is wrong with all of the studies such as this.

  7. #7
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,426
    This sounds like it is part of that old study...most of the meat is processed burgers etc....guess there is no way it could be the bun and soda that goes with it
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  8. #8
    Paysan's Avatar
    Paysan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    335
    [QUOTE=Lewis;950439]The methane business seems to be nonsense. Either plants rot and methane is released, or a similar process happens in cows' stomachs. Same thing either way. What are we supposed to do? Drain all the wetlands? And look at the number of bison in North America before the buffalo hunters really got going. Weren't they farting? Someone's got it in for cows, but it just doesn't add up. [/]

    Most of those gassy studies were produced with feedlot cattle. I'm willing to bet that grassfed critters eating a normal range of varied greenery have superior intestinal health to grainfed critters. AAMOF, I'll bet we all know people with bad digestion have severe flatulence problems, and I'm also betting their diets are not optimal nor anywhere near.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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