Tr?id=708008405978544&ev=pageview&noscript=1
6

votes

Vegan "nutritionist" sister is driving me nuts. Help!

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created February 05, 2013 at 7:02 PM

My borderline vegan sister is about to head to grad school for nutrition and I am a newbie cavegirl. We always get into arguments about animal protein and grains.

Her most recent campaign: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/animal-protein/

I know to combat this line: "The presence of industrial carcinogens, xenoestrogens, arsenic,steroids and external hormones in animal fat and protein may be partially to blame." with the paleo matra of grass-fed beef, farm raised chicken, etc. but what about something like this: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/meat-fumes-dietary-secondhand-smoke/ It's a video about how the fumes of cooked meat cause growth issues and cancer.

Any arguments I can throw her way?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 18, 2014
at 02:42 PM

Fellow Cuban here. Good luck convincing your sister that rice and beans (and yucca, platanitos, maiz, and boniato) are bad for her. The way we were raised these foods were "super healthy". Really sad. Doesn't surprise me how so many Cubans here in Miami are morbidly obese and in horrible shape, they really believe the starchy foods they are used to eating are healthy. I tried convincing my family to switch, big fail, and that was after they saw me lose 30 pounds on it....

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 18, 2014
at 02:03 PM

HCAs do cause cancer, as do PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) created during the cooking process. However, this can be easily avoided: don't char your meat and don't cook it over a flame. Instead of BBQing use a different cooking method, like steaming, microwaving, poaching, pressure cooking, soups, sous-vide, etc. There's a million ways to cook meat without burning it. It's just the typical vegan scare tactic. Funny how they never say anything about acrylamides in their bread and potatoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Human_cancer_risk_of_acrylamide_exposure_from_food

Bac49edb31092c3d6db9d461485cb310

on February 17, 2014
at 09:22 PM

Zeranol has not been banned for use in beef or chicken in the US. It's only allowed in beef in Canada.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41787)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

They put up a good front that can dupe some people I'm sure!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26197)

on February 25, 2013
at 09:19 PM

did you convince her to layoff the bad science?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 07, 2013
at 07:21 PM

A lot of things can influence HCA detoxification http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 so it's like there's a zone where a small amount of HCAs may not have an effect at all, and it's modified by other factors. Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 07, 2013
at 07:07 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 -- Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 07, 2013
at 07:04 PM

I think dose-dependent means that there isn't really a threshold and it's toxic at any level but it's linear. I just think that the data suggests that it's not dose-dependent, and many things increase the rate of detoxification and reduce mutagenicity.

7eecdd43c11e2af1a9e4ca0f63d44749

(119)

on February 06, 2013
at 05:03 PM

haha yeah that makes sense. I'm the kind of person who seeks harmony in groups while others enjoy a bit of conflict. NSync v Backstreet Boys though? ;)

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 04:26 PM

Yeah, now that I think about that term does not meat what I intended it to mean. I was trying to refer to the linear no threshold model of carcinogens.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 06, 2013
at 04:02 PM

We are Cuban. Very loud stubborn personalities. When we were little it was NSYNC vs. Backstreet Boys. Now it's paleo vs. vegan. This is fun for us.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26197)

on February 06, 2013
at 01:18 PM

@Stabby, I have never understood that argument (I know it is not your argument it is Greger's). Large amounts of water are toxic, does that mean we should we should never consume water ever?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41787)

on February 06, 2013
at 01:07 PM

I'm likely not up on my toxicology/pharmacology lingo, but dose dependent sounds like there's a minimum threshold for toxicity/carcinogenicity. Or maybe it just means that dose versus risk/probability is linear/proportional?

Ca2c940a1947e6200883908592956680

(8574)

on February 06, 2013
at 10:38 AM

http://paindatabase.com/ask-kamal-stabby-vegan-diet

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:22 AM

Chlorophyll chelates iron too, as do a few other compounds (certain polyphenols I believe). But yeah, I think meat can be, in some dietary contexts, unhealthy. There, I said it. But it doesn't have to be, as you've already saliently pointed out. And advocating it's avoidance entirely, given its important nutrients and potential benefits, seems silly.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:16 AM

That was a joke, but yes I absolutely agree.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:15 AM

Tell them they should do a meta-analysis of meta-analysis.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:08 AM

meta-analysis of cooking techniques. I suspect that once the really harsh ones are controlled for the few correlations between meat and certain cancers will vanish. Also there is heme iron in red meat which needs to be chelated by calcium through the GI tract. There are actually a number of possible contextual issues that can be expected to further weaken the argument that meat contributes to cancer risk, and yet so many people seem indifferent to rigor and just want to say that all meat is bad and you should be a vegan.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:06 AM

Stabby, why'd ya delete your comments? They were good, as always.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:05 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are also bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I just e-mailed some Harvard guys asking if they're going to do a meta-analysi

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:53 AM

or maybe he's serious about truth but not the scientific method.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:53 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are bad but less bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I don't find Greger to be very credible, he's not serious about truth

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:47 AM

that because there is a risk associated with high heat cooking methods then there is no suitable medium between too much and too little. He is actually acutely aware of the fact that moderate baking, boiling, and basically anything with water don't tend to generate significant amounts of HCAs in humans, yet he thinks that the only rational conclusion is the diet that he would be eating anyway even if meat was the healthiest thing in the world (and it might be pretty healthy what with all of its unique nutrients! It's kind of simple-minded to anchor like that).

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:44 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. And in truth most meta-analyses for meat consumption and cancer risk are either extremely weak or non-supportive, the scientists who do them aren't very confident that the data supports that conclusion. The exception being colorectal cancer, which I think is mostly an issue of extreme overcooking like grilling and cooking to well-done, as well as heme iron in the absence of the calcium to chelate it in its passage through the GI tract. But Greger likes to say...

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c

(1981)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:52 PM

All right, anonymous downvote!

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:47 PM

This is perfect! Thanks for the link.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:46 PM

I have my MMA class tonight :)

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:46 PM

I usually assume what she sends me is backed by more legitimate sources because she is studying nutrition FOR HER JOB. Apparently not... Thanks for the answer.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:45 PM

Thanks! Can't wait to draft a better researched email!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26197)

on February 05, 2013
at 09:00 PM

funded by the Rasch Foundation (a vegetarian proponent) and run by Dr. Greger who is a vegetarian of note.... Amazing they were the ones who figured out meat is bad and vegetarianism is good... What are the odds?

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

(3452)

on February 05, 2013
at 08:12 PM

If it's a point of contention just don't talk about. Actively. When it comes up just say that you're not interested in discussing it. Period.

  • 8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

    asked by

    (30)
  • Views
    3.2K
  • Last Activity
    621D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

13 Answers

best answer

10
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26197)

on February 05, 2013
at 07:35 PM

Amazing. The problem is that most of xenoestrogens that humans consume is from crops such as corn, sugarcane, soy, dwarf wheat and winter wheat. As well as insecticides used on numerous vegetables, fruits, cereal grains. And finally the plastic containers that foods are sold in. The primary animal fat xenoestrogen, Zeranol, has been banned from use in the US.....

So you tell me, which diet is going to be higher in xenoestrogens?

As for the studies:

The mutegen that they are identifying, Heterocyclic amines form when amino acids and creatine react at very high cooking temperatures.

So why should I be surprised that meat, which inherently has creatine, produces higher amounts of HCAs? When Soy and Tofu have virtually no creatine. Also the study does not specify the type of seed oil used to fry the foods -- rancid oil is one of the prime culprits of HCAs.

For the second study? They are talking about a .2 lbs difference and are calling it significant. It may be scientifically significant, but that does not make it significant in real life. (see subway 11" foot long debacle). But let's see what the authors thought:

"estimated effects were of borderline significance level"

"the reduced birth weight could not have been mediated by a shortened gestation period"

"the intake of barbecued meat did not affect the duration of pregnancy"

Also there is nothing to suggest that a lower birth weight (which btw, huge 95% CI) has anything to do with the health of the fetus.

My take? Bad science.

======================================================================= Edit:

The other thing that really bothers me about this "study" is that there is an assumption that any ingestion of HCA causes cancer. There have been studies that have definitively linked massive amounts of HCA to cancer. We should not assume that there is a linear relationship and that if TOO MUCH HCA is bad, than any amount of HCA is bad and/or that there is some cumulative effect.

If that logic is appropriate, than we really shouldn't drink any water. It has been shown that too much water leads to hyponatremia which can lead to death. So if TOO MUCH water is bad, than all water is bad. Or there is some cumulative effect so if you drink water every day at some point you will go over a threshold.

Now we all know that this is BS. We have processes to excrete water. So there is certainly no cumulative effect. We also know that we need water for survival. Some water = necessary for life; Too much water = death. There is a happy medium, and our bodies are particularly well designed to excrete toxins before they get to the dangerous threshold.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:45 PM

Thanks! Can't wait to draft a better researched email!

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 18, 2014
at 02:03 PM

HCAs do cause cancer, as do PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) created during the cooking process. However, this can be easily avoided: don't char your meat and don't cook it over a flame. Instead of BBQing use a different cooking method, like steaming, microwaving, poaching, pressure cooking, soups, sous-vide, etc. There's a million ways to cook meat without burning it. It's just the typical vegan scare tactic. Funny how they never say anything about acrylamides in their bread and potatoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Human_cancer_risk_of_acrylamide_exposure_from_food

Bac49edb31092c3d6db9d461485cb310

on February 17, 2014
at 09:22 PM

Zeranol has not been banned for use in beef or chicken in the US. It's only allowed in beef in Canada.

7
Cf416725f639ffd1bb90764792ce7b8a

(2799)

on February 05, 2013
at 07:27 PM

Secretly take martial arts lessons then mercilessly physically dominate your sister at every opportunity all the while claiming it's solely the result of your superior diet.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:46 PM

I have my MMA class tonight :)

7
Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on February 05, 2013
at 07:11 PM

That video said that living near a Chinese restaurant will be detrimental to your health because they broil fish there. Seriously, that's batshit-cantthinkstraight-vegan-craziness argument... I can't even count the number of third variables that they couldn't/didn't control for. Tell your vegan sister to give you clinical research instead of this garbage.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:46 PM

I usually assume what she sends me is backed by more legitimate sources because she is studying nutrition FOR HER JOB. Apparently not... Thanks for the answer.

6
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41787)

on February 05, 2013
at 08:00 PM

"Similarly, the best source of vitamin B12 is from supplements rather from animal sources."

Really? The best source of B12 is an artificial pill, not a whole food? How did we survive as a species up to now? Can you really take a site that says this seriously? I've seen 'articles' there before, they're all pretty miserable.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26197)

on February 05, 2013
at 09:00 PM

funded by the Rasch Foundation (a vegetarian proponent) and run by Dr. Greger who is a vegetarian of note.... Amazing they were the ones who figured out meat is bad and vegetarianism is good... What are the odds?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41787)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

They put up a good front that can dupe some people I'm sure!

4
6dc767a3b94cb0133601caf6c39ea218

(330)

on February 05, 2013
at 08:03 PM

honestly, anyone NOT paleo will disagree with you about being Paleo. i don't even talk about it anymore and if people ask me about it, i just give a short and simple answer. my favorite was when an overweight friend of mine asked how i looked so great (been doing Paleo and CrossFit for a year now), and when i told her, she was all negative about Paleo. she said, "well, i eat a multi-grain bagel with cream cheese every morning and i'm just fine." really? well, you are a couch potato and fat.... don't ask me how i look so great if you are then going to bring me down. ignorant!!

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

(3452)

on February 05, 2013
at 08:12 PM

If it's a point of contention just don't talk about. Actively. When it comes up just say that you're not interested in discussing it. Period.

3
A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on February 05, 2013
at 07:24 PM

I suggest you spend some time reading Denise Minger's blog:
http://rawfoodsos.com/

She's a smart, ex vegan, who crunches the numbers and looks at a lot of studies (tears them apart, more like).

That and maybe Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth is worth a read.

(Yes, I know Lierre plays loose with facts in that book and she seems to have gone batshit crazy lately, but I still like the book for the passion, the lyrical prose and thoughtful, compelling arguments. And anybody who takes a Tobasco cream pie to the face from angry vegans is a hero in my book.)

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:47 PM

This is perfect! Thanks for the link.

3
532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c

(1981)

on February 05, 2013
at 07:11 PM

Just bide your time. Often, people's beliefs about food have nothing to do with facts. When she baits you, look at her and say "yeah, maybe," and then carry on with your bad self.

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c

(1981)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:52 PM

All right, anonymous downvote!

2
7eecdd43c11e2af1a9e4ca0f63d44749

on February 06, 2013
at 08:45 AM

I would suggest it might be worth considering why you feel the need to respond to your sister's arguments and 'win' the argument. Is it just part of sibling rivalry, do you want o convert your sister to paleo? Is it important for you that people around you think the same way? There could be all sorts of reasons, but one thing I've learned of years living in a family where I am very different and take an active interest in all sorts of things whereas my family don't, that I'm never going to get them to think the way I do, or for that matter just even try to understand something from my point of view.

What kind of relationship will you have with you sister if you end up continually arguing about nurtition? Is it worth it? Try influencing others by setting an example in terms of how you live your own life rather than getting into technical arguments. Often no matter what facts you have, you won't 'win' anyway.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12

(30)

on February 06, 2013
at 04:02 PM

We are Cuban. Very loud stubborn personalities. When we were little it was NSYNC vs. Backstreet Boys. Now it's paleo vs. vegan. This is fun for us.

7eecdd43c11e2af1a9e4ca0f63d44749

(119)

on February 06, 2013
at 05:03 PM

haha yeah that makes sense. I'm the kind of person who seeks harmony in groups while others enjoy a bit of conflict. NSync v Backstreet Boys though? ;)

2
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 05, 2013
at 10:58 PM

My issue with the way studies like that first one are used is that it relies on the idea that such compounds (HCA's in this case) are dose dependent carcinogens, i.e., any dose above zero increases cancer.

In reality, this idea is flimsy and many carcinogens likely have a threshold level. Basically, there are carcinogens everywhere, but thankfully for us, in doses well below what are problematic.

Should we really worry about cooking beef because some study found the produced fumes had 1/3 of a nanogram of carcinogens per gram of meat, whereas tempeh fumes had 1/6 a nanogram of these carcinogens?

Personally, I'm not convinced the extra 0.00000000017 grams of HCA's in the air, most of which I'm probably not even inhaling, are worth worrying about.

None of this is to say barbecuing and frying the crap out of your meat isn't a bad idea, I think it is. But this is not a required way of eating meat. You can easily cook meat in gentler ways and many such arguments against it become much weaker.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:05 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are also bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I just e-mailed some Harvard guys asking if they're going to do a meta-analysi

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26197)

on February 06, 2013
at 01:18 PM

@Stabby, I have never understood that argument (I know it is not your argument it is Greger's). Large amounts of water are toxic, does that mean we should we should never consume water ever?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:06 AM

Stabby, why'd ya delete your comments? They were good, as always.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:47 AM

that because there is a risk associated with high heat cooking methods then there is no suitable medium between too much and too little. He is actually acutely aware of the fact that moderate baking, boiling, and basically anything with water don't tend to generate significant amounts of HCAs in humans, yet he thinks that the only rational conclusion is the diet that he would be eating anyway even if meat was the healthiest thing in the world (and it might be pretty healthy what with all of its unique nutrients! It's kind of simple-minded to anchor like that).

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:16 AM

That was a joke, but yes I absolutely agree.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 07, 2013
at 07:21 PM

A lot of things can influence HCA detoxification http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 so it's like there's a zone where a small amount of HCAs may not have an effect at all, and it's modified by other factors. Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:22 AM

Chlorophyll chelates iron too, as do a few other compounds (certain polyphenols I believe). But yeah, I think meat can be, in some dietary contexts, unhealthy. There, I said it. But it doesn't have to be, as you've already saliently pointed out. And advocating it's avoidance entirely, given its important nutrients and potential benefits, seems silly.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:44 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. And in truth most meta-analyses for meat consumption and cancer risk are either extremely weak or non-supportive, the scientists who do them aren't very confident that the data supports that conclusion. The exception being colorectal cancer, which I think is mostly an issue of extreme overcooking like grilling and cooking to well-done, as well as heme iron in the absence of the calcium to chelate it in its passage through the GI tract. But Greger likes to say...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:53 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are bad but less bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I don't find Greger to be very credible, he's not serious about truth

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 07, 2013
at 07:07 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 -- Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 07, 2013
at 07:04 PM

I think dose-dependent means that there isn't really a threshold and it's toxic at any level but it's linear. I just think that the data suggests that it's not dose-dependent, and many things increase the rate of detoxification and reduce mutagenicity.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:15 AM

Tell them they should do a meta-analysis of meta-analysis.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 06:53 AM

or maybe he's serious about truth but not the scientific method.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41787)

on February 06, 2013
at 01:07 PM

I'm likely not up on my toxicology/pharmacology lingo, but dose dependent sounds like there's a minimum threshold for toxicity/carcinogenicity. Or maybe it just means that dose versus risk/probability is linear/proportional?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on February 06, 2013
at 04:26 PM

Yeah, now that I think about that term does not meat what I intended it to mean. I was trying to refer to the linear no threshold model of carcinogens.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 06, 2013
at 07:08 AM

meta-analysis of cooking techniques. I suspect that once the really harsh ones are controlled for the few correlations between meat and certain cancers will vanish. Also there is heme iron in red meat which needs to be chelated by calcium through the GI tract. There are actually a number of possible contextual issues that can be expected to further weaken the argument that meat contributes to cancer risk, and yet so many people seem indifferent to rigor and just want to say that all meat is bad and you should be a vegan.

1
5dd50f78f47b8848d93724d6eb38d4c1

on February 06, 2013
at 07:09 AM

You should be grateful you have an sibling you can argue about nutrition with. It could help you both learn more and see different view points. No one in my family gives a damn about nutrition.

0
687bcdeaf37909fd0a6c3dbcc244f1de

on February 18, 2014
at 01:29 PM

I compete unspokenly with my sister. She was a natural bodybuilder and gymnast, a doctor, and specializes in nutrition. I was introverted and an emotional carb wreck.

Now I have bounced informational texts....but to avoid conflict, I do my thing, do it well, and shine with my outstanding transformation.

Btw...not all is as seems. Someone who I thought walked her talk has secret candy stashed, processed food, and slams her ex for having kids on celiac diet. She pushed alcohol on me and gave me crap for my excess herbal tea consumption. No need to fear that poor of competition! I'm more fit than her with a healthier diet now, unbelievable!

0
F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(710)

on February 17, 2014
at 10:00 PM

Point her to the personal blog of Peter Attia, MD

http://eatingacademy.com/start-here

http://eatingacademy.com/dr-peter-attia

http://eatingacademy.com/my-personal-nutrition-journey

http://eatingacademy.com/category/cholesterol-2

Perhaps reading the work of a mechanical engineer trained as an MD at Stanford & Johns Hopkins who has turned his focus towards nutrition will have some impact on her thinking. Let Dr. A's work do the heavy lifting for you with respect to how most "nutritional research" is lacking good science. :(

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!