Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: how much red meat page 3

  1. #21
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,478
    Primal Fuel
    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.
    From the study "it does not prove that red meat causes cancer. None of the cells were malignant, and the body has a series of mechanisms to repair damaged DNA."

    As for the large study that was referenced I believe that included processed meats in form of McDonalds and other meats cooked with processed oils and would have included the bun etc.

    I guess we should just eat buckwheat instead!?!
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  2. #22
    Lukey's Avatar
    Lukey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    207
    Observational studies have no validity. For example take John. John doesn't really care about his health. He eats a lot of red meat and saturated fat (which we are told is bad for you) or whatever he feels like, including a high processed carb, high sugar diet. He also doesn't exercise, he drinks and he smokes. He is also overweight due to his lifestyle choices. Not surprisingly, John has a lot of health issues.

    Then take Jack. Jack cares about his health, so he doesn't eat a lot of red meat and saturated fats, and eats mostly white meat like chicken and fish, because he is told they are good for him. He exercises regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. Not surprisingly, Jack doesn't have many health issues.

    A group of researchers ask Jack and John, and many others to fill out a questionnaire to see if high consumption of red meat and saturated fat is related to health problems. They conclude that people who eat red meat and saturated fats are more likely to be unhealthy.

    At no point did the researchers ask what other foods they ate, how often they exercised, if they drank or smoked heavily, and if they were overweight.

    What i have said describes a vast majority of "research" done on saturated fats and red meat. Correlation does not equate to causation.

  3. #23
    noodletoy's Avatar
    noodletoy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    land of the glass pinecones
    Posts
    2,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukey View Post
    Correlation does not equate to causation.
    ^^THIS^^

    observational studies are basically lazy, junk science, generally only good for another headline of "zomg!!!!! this food will kill you!!!" "zomg!!! THIS food will kill you!!!!!" repeat.
    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

    Ernest Hemingway

  4. #24
    Sandra in BC's Avatar
    Sandra in BC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,102
    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

    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.
    ."
    I wonder how much of that beef was consumed with a bun, ketchup, a side of fries and a coke.

    People who regularly consume fish and boneless skinless chicken *typically* are making a conscious effort to eat healthier overall.
    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

  5. #25
    Lukey's Avatar
    Lukey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandra in BC View Post
    I wonder how much of that beef was consumed with a bun, ketchup, a side of fries and a coke.

    People who regularly consume fish and boneless skinless chicken *typically* are making a conscious effort to eat healthier overall.
    Exactly.

  6. #26
    avelin's Avatar
    avelin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Antipodes
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukey View Post
    Observational studies have no validity. For example take John. John doesn't really care about his health. He eats a lot of red meat and saturated fat (which we are told is bad for you) or whatever he feels like, including a high processed carb, high sugar diet. He also doesn't exercise, he drinks and he smokes. He is also overweight due to his lifestyle choices. Not surprisingly, John has a lot of health issues.

    Then take Jack. Jack cares about his health, so he doesn't eat a lot of red meat and saturated fats, and eats mostly white meat like chicken and fish, because he is told they are good for him. He exercises regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. Not surprisingly, Jack doesn't have many health issues.

    A group of researchers ask Jack and John, and many others to fill out a questionnaire to see if high consumption of red meat and saturated fat is related to health problems. They conclude that people who eat red meat and saturated fats are more likely to be unhealthy.

    At no point did the researchers ask what other foods they ate, how often they exercised, if they drank or smoked heavily, and if they were overweight.

    What i have said describes a vast majority of "research" done on saturated fats and red meat. Correlation does not equate to causation.
    Well said!
    Evolutionary. Ideology that fits biology

  7. #27
    Quarry's Avatar
    Quarry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandra in BC View Post
    I wonder how much of that beef was consumed with a bun, ketchup, a side of fries and a coke.

    People who regularly consume fish and boneless skinless chicken *typically* are making a conscious effort to eat healthier overall.
    True, too many unknowns. And what oil were they cooking with?

  8. #28
    tfarny's Avatar
    tfarny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukey View Post
    Observational studies have no validity. For example take John. John doesn't really care about his health. He eats a lot of red meat and saturated fat (which we are told is bad for you) or whatever he feels like, including a high processed carb, high sugar diet. He also doesn't exercise, he drinks and he smokes. He is also overweight due to his lifestyle choices. Not surprisingly, John has a lot of health issues.

    Then take Jack. Jack cares about his health, so he doesn't eat a lot of red meat and saturated fats, and eats mostly white meat like chicken and fish, because he is told they are good for him. He exercises regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. Not surprisingly, Jack doesn't have many health issues.

    A group of researchers ask Jack and John, and many others to fill out a questionnaire to see if high consumption of red meat and saturated fat is related to health problems. They conclude that people who eat red meat and saturated fats are more likely to be unhealthy.

    At no point did the researchers ask what other foods they ate, how often they exercised, if they drank or smoked heavily, and if they were overweight.

    What i have said describes a vast majority of "research" done on saturated fats and red meat. Correlation does not equate to causation.
    Actually it's (hopefully) not done like that. They do ask about other health choices people make and then use statistical "corrections" for this. That's called "controlling for" extraneous variables. The problem is that diet and lifestyle are very complex and it's extremely hard to control for all relevant variables (and their interactions) in a real world study involving humans. So in theory you are wrong but in practice you are right.
    If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

  9. #29
    tfarny's Avatar
    tfarny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,478
    OP: eat all the red meat you want, especially properly raised stuff. It's great for your health, makes you feel awesome, and keeps you from getting the munchies all the time.
    If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

  10. #30
    Lukey's Avatar
    Lukey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    207
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by tfarny View Post
    Actually it's (hopefully) not done like that. They do ask about other health choices people make and then use statistical "corrections" for this. That's called "controlling for" extraneous variables. The problem is that diet and lifestyle are very complex and it's extremely hard to control for all relevant variables (and their interactions) in a real world study involving humans. So in theory you are wrong but in practice you are right.
    Did you read the studies? At no point did they mention other foods other than the meat. They just say the people who ate the most red meat had the biggest chance of getting cancer, they didn't mention what other foods they were eating or lifestyle choices they made. In the other study, they put people on a high red meat diet, a vegetarian and a high red meat high fiber diet. At no point did they specify what other foods they ate. I seriously doubt it was an all meat diet, let alone good quality grass-fed meat. They also had no mention of lifestyle choices. I'm not saying your wrong, they should account for extraneous variables, but it most cases, including those studies, they don't.

Page 3 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
  •