Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: how much red meat page 2

  1. #11
    Sandra in BC's Avatar
    Sandra in BC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,102
    Primal Fuel
    I hope there's no limit, because we eat red meat for dinner (beef, elk, venison) about 80% of the time. I buy a little chicken, pork and fish when I find a super sale or if I can get pastured/organic/fresh caught from a local source.
    Sandra
    *My obligatory intro

    There are no cheat days. There are days when you eat primal and days you don't. As soon as you label a day a cheat day, you're on a diet. Don't be on a diet. ~~ Fernaldo

    DAINTY CAN KISS MY PRIMAL BACKSIDE. ~~ Crabcakes

  2. #12
    paul900's Avatar
    paul900 Guest
    You should limit the amount of red meat consumed. It's ok to consume it but not with any great regularity. Studies have linked it to colon cancer

    Red meat and colon cancer

    "Although the results vary, studies from around the world have suggested that a high consumption of meat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer. In all cases the worry is confined to red meat, not chicken.

    The best evidence comes from a pair of large 2005 studies, one from Europe, the other from the United States. The European research tracked 478,000 men and women who were free of cancer when the study began. The people who ate the most red meat (about 5 ounces a day or more) were about a third more likely to develop colon cancer than those who ate the least red meat (less than an ounce a day on average). Their consumption of chicken did not influence risk one way or the other, but a high consumption of fish appeared to reduce the risk of colon cancer by about a third.

    The U.S. study added important information about the effects of long-term meat consumption. The subjects were 148,610 people between the ages of 50 and 74. A high consumption of red and processed meats was linked with a substantial increase in the risk of cancer in the lower colon and rectum. Conversely, the long-term consumption of large amounts of fish and poultry appeared protective.

    These two studies are impressive, and they don’t stand alone. A meta-analysis of 29 studies of meat consumption and colon cancer concluded that a high consumption of red meat increases risk by 28%, and a high consumption of processed meat increases risk by 20%."

  3. #13
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,421
    Please ignore the troll
    Eat all the grass fed beef you want, all the free range chicken you want and all the wild fish you want.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  4. #14
    paul900's Avatar
    paul900 Guest
    man how am i a troll? i have provided EVIDENCE there of studies performed. I'm not taking this stuff out of my ass.

    Not everyone that presents a contrary point is a troll. Are all the researchers who did the studies trolls too? I suppose the 478,000 participants were also trolls?

    We can disagree without name calling.

  5. #15
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,679
    Those red meat = cancer studies are all observational. All observational studies can do is point to potential blind, controlled studies (as much as can be done with diet). But very few studies get funded because there is no commercial imperative. In the meantime, suggest you followup on all of the commentary on those studies. The conclusions are not as simple as may appear
    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

  6. #16
    paul900's Avatar
    paul900 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    Those red meat = cancer studies are all observational. All observational studies can do is point to potential blind, controlled studies (as much as can be done with diet). But very few studies get funded because there is no commercial imperative. In the meantime, suggest you followup on all of the commentary on those studies. The conclusions are not as simple as may appear
    I do agree. I have a degree in science and did some modules on nutrition.

    The problem with these kinds of studies is that they don't particularly tell us that red meat is the culprit. We know that the people that supposedly ate more red meat than the other people developed more cancer but we don't know about their other food intakes or their other lifestyle choices. It's not something that would hold up in a court of law BUT it is something to think about and I wouldn't immediately dismiss it either. Isn't it best to err on the side of caution and just not take as much red meat just in case??

    In my opinion, yes.

  7. #17
    eek3's Avatar
    eek3 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    5
    Rebuttal to "red meat = cancer": Flawed Red Meat Study: You Are What Your Food Ate | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

    "We see a number of big problems with this study.

    First, the study was conducted over a very long period of time (28 years for women, 22 years for men) by sending out food questionnaires every four years. Self-reporting, much less every four years, is not a reliable method of data gathering.

    Second, and even more importantly, the study did not differentiate between organic, grass-fed beef, and non-organic, CAFO-raised beef. As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out, the nutritive value of the each is very different!

    Because of the conditions and the grain-based feed used in factory farms, conventional beef may contain over twenty times the amount of omega-6 fatty acids (associated with arthritis, chronic inflammation, and cancer) than healthful omega-3 fatty acids (which help blood circulation, reduce inflammation, and strengthen the heart). By contrast, grass-fed beef typically has nearly seven times more omega-3s than omega-6s."

  8. #18
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by paul900 View Post
    I do agree. I have a degree in science and did some modules on nutrition.

    The problem with these kinds of studies is that they don't particularly tell us that red meat is the culprit. We know that the people that supposedly ate more red meat than the other people developed more cancer but we don't know about their other food intakes or their other lifestyle choices. It's not something that would hold up in a court of law BUT it is something to think about and I wouldn't immediately dismiss it either. Isn't it best to err on the side of caution and just not take as much red meat just in case??

    In my opinion, yes.
    Your advice to "err on the side of caution" is a little different than your initial warning "you should limit..." BTW, since you can find multiple studies linking virtually every food available to cancer, CVD, dementia, diabetes, etc, etc, etc, I guess we should always err of the side of caution and slowly starve ourselves to death.

  9. #19
    BennettC's Avatar
    BennettC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Beaufot, SC
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by paul900 View Post
    You should limit the amount of red meat consumed. It's ok to consume it but not with any great regularity. Studies have linked it to colon cancer

    Red meat and colon cancer

    "Although the results vary, studies from around the world have suggested that a high consumption of meat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer. In all cases the worry is confined to red meat, not chicken.

    The best evidence comes from a pair of large 2005 studies, one from Europe, the other from the United States. The European research tracked 478,000 men and women who were free of cancer when the study began. The people who ate the most red meat (about 5 ounces a day or more) were about a third more likely to develop colon cancer than those who ate the least red meat (less than an ounce a day on average). Their consumption of chicken did not influence risk one way or the other, but a high consumption of fish appeared to reduce the risk of colon cancer by about a third.

    The U.S. study added important information about the effects of long-term meat consumption. The subjects were 148,610 people between the ages of 50 and 74. A high consumption of red and processed meats was linked with a substantial increase in the risk of cancer in the lower colon and rectum. Conversely, the long-term consumption of large amounts of fish and poultry appeared protective.

    These two studies are impressive, and they don’t stand alone. A meta-analysis of 29 studies of meat consumption and colon cancer concluded that a high consumption of red meat increases risk by 28%, and a high consumption of processed meat increases risk by 20%."
    nonsense! what would grok do
    Paleo since November 2011 - Carnivore since June 2012
    Before and after pics
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread65846.html
    Primal Sucess Story
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread65400.html
    Primal Journal
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...tml#post955444

  10. #20
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,303
    Quote Originally Posted by paul900 View Post
    man how am i a troll? i have provided EVIDENCE there of studies performed. I'm not taking this stuff out of my ass.

    Not everyone that presents a contrary point is a troll. Are all the researchers who did the studies trolls too? I suppose the 478,000 participants were also trolls?

    We can disagree without name calling.
    This is the relevant phrase in your quoted study:

    red and processed meats
    Because they did not separate the fresh meat from the processed meat, which contains sugar, msg, nitrates and other chemicals, the research is not valid. Go find some research where people at only fresh meat.

    These associative studies are never valid. Too many confounding variables.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 170 x 3. Current Deadlift: 220 x 3

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •