4

votes

Are we doing it wrong in eating so much meat?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created July 22, 2011 at 7:11 PM

More of the same coming from the standard fare:

Eating Meat Linked To Disease, Report Says

16a83c62c4650896080a9d3d94159059

(270)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:51 PM

This is the first time I have seen this presentation and I was blown away. Great link. It really breaks down the whole farce of what "experts" know on nutrition and scientific claims.

776cf39df980711e80fc02317eb64649

(892)

on July 23, 2011
at 01:04 PM

I'm pretty sure the iron content of red meat has something to do with increased rates of cancer. Also, to play devil's advocate: white meat is typically processed as often as red meat. So if they say white meat decreases cancer, I don't think the CAFO and the processing is solely to blame for the effects of red meat.

776cf39df980711e80fc02317eb64649

(892)

on July 23, 2011
at 01:00 PM

I eat plenty of meat, but I make sure not to make it the majority of my intake. I feel meat really taxes one's digestion: this is why grannies aren't doing VLC and eating steak 3 meals a day (though if you know of any, give her my regards).

776cf39df980711e80fc02317eb64649

(892)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:59 PM

I personally think there may be some ounce of legitimacy to the meat is bad media. Although meat fans here will readily cry out that this was processed, CAFO meat this study is referring to, I think a relative similar analogy can be made with sugar: sugar consumption is linked to chronic disease, and I suppose some sugar-fanatics could claim that it's the refined, white stuff that will kill you, not their 100% organic, fair-trade sugar cane. Of course, I know meat processing entails a much more chemical-ridden process, but we should not be some quick to ignore it completely.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:27 AM

"red meat increases risk whereas white meat decreases it" That was the annoying bit, there are relativly few differences between them. Why not research those differences rather than one huge study after another looking for general associations.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:00 AM

... My guess would be the healthy-person bias, namely that all the (wealthy, educated, white) health freaks are eating lean chicken breasts and tuna and all the smoking, drinking, poor people are eating to (and admitting to) red meat.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:00 AM

Actually they DID find an increase in total mortality (as the linked article says) because the stat is not increased risk of death/cardiovascular death/cancer death tout court, but death after 10 years. With all these 'findings' I query how they think they can explain the fact that red meat increases risk whereas white meat decreases it? If the same studies find that sat fat isn't linked, then they can't blame that. Red/white meat are equally proteinous so it can't be that. So what is to blame- all the nutrients that you get in red meat but not white?...

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:22 AM

@CaveDad I think it's to make plausible to people the idea that they all greedily eat too much meat (an idea constantly pressed by vegetarians, as well as nutritionists), when in fact most people much prefer and eat a lot more sugar.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:38 AM

Awesome! Tom Naughton is inimitable.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:09 AM

Reading that is annoying :)

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 22, 2011
at 11:27 PM

I think Huffington Post must be run by vegetarians!

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 22, 2011
at 08:46 PM

That speech is a thing of beauty.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:58 PM

But stabby - that's American science! Cherry-picking until there is nothing but easily-digested sound bites that don't force people to think beyond a headline or image caption. GAH!!!!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:56 PM

...I don't support factory farmed meat for other reasons. That's another thing to consider, these "meat report" people are environmentalists and biased in their hatred. The way to earn cred in my eyes would be not to cherry-pick and equivocate like a scoundrel, but oh no, can't expect that. Rarg.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Yup. You're correct. Perhaps if our "scientists" weren't funded by corporations we would have actual, real DATA! Like, good studies with hard core science that pisses everyone off. THAT'S the kind of science we need.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Right, and not only that, but when you distinguish between processed and unprocessed junky grain-fed hormoney stuff you don't find any association with heart disease. So even in a society where most people already think that all meat except for chicken breast completely kills you dead so the most health-conscious people eat the least and the least health-conscious people eat the most, you still see no association between poor quality meat and heart disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151 I think that grass-fed organic meat would be a benefit. Heck maybe even junk meat is, although

254ea62982c287995e11bc3cfd629407

(822)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:33 PM

You just KNOW that a ton of the Paleo-folk are getting this story waived under their noses by their SAD antagonists. I think most reputable Paleo sources have continually talked about quality meat AND a balance of other organic sources of fruits and veggies, but that's summarily ignored...

A45af235ed4dd0b4f548c59e91b75763

(1936)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:29 PM

I'm still trying to find a link to the report that they are citing. And why is the photo of "meat" slathered in sugar sauce?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:28 PM

I said "meat" a lot in there :)

  • 254ea62982c287995e11bc3cfd629407

    asked by

    (822)
  • Views
    1.9K
  • Last Activity
    1410D AGO
Frontpage book

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

7 Answers

12
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:22 PM

I read that a few days ago and what all these reports have in common is that they link processed meat and shit-store meat with ALL meat. So yeah, eating over-antibiotic'd meat and tons of processed meat-like frankenfoods will be harmful. I'm pissed that these people don't have the scientific acumen to discern among the variants of meat.

However, I believe eating too much of anything, including meat can't be good. I'm not a meat-only person and I have no problem admitting I will go without meat for a few days. Shoot - I can't afford good meat all the time. When I don't eat meat, I feel a little lighter. I supplement with eggs or fish.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Right, and not only that, but when you distinguish between processed and unprocessed junky grain-fed hormoney stuff you don't find any association with heart disease. So even in a society where most people already think that all meat except for chicken breast completely kills you dead so the most health-conscious people eat the least and the least health-conscious people eat the most, you still see no association between poor quality meat and heart disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151 I think that grass-fed organic meat would be a benefit. Heck maybe even junk meat is, although

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:28 PM

I said "meat" a lot in there :)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Yup. You're correct. Perhaps if our "scientists" weren't funded by corporations we would have actual, real DATA! Like, good studies with hard core science that pisses everyone off. THAT'S the kind of science we need.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:58 PM

But stabby - that's American science! Cherry-picking until there is nothing but easily-digested sound bites that don't force people to think beyond a headline or image caption. GAH!!!!

254ea62982c287995e11bc3cfd629407

(822)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:33 PM

You just KNOW that a ton of the Paleo-folk are getting this story waived under their noses by their SAD antagonists. I think most reputable Paleo sources have continually talked about quality meat AND a balance of other organic sources of fruits and veggies, but that's summarily ignored...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:56 PM

...I don't support factory farmed meat for other reasons. That's another thing to consider, these "meat report" people are environmentalists and biased in their hatred. The way to earn cred in my eyes would be not to cherry-pick and equivocate like a scoundrel, but oh no, can't expect that. Rarg.

9
A45af235ed4dd0b4f548c59e91b75763

(1936)

on July 22, 2011
at 07:50 PM

I did manage to follow up on one of their "research studies" just for fun. The 2009 NCI research that was done to determine that red meat eaters were at a greater risk of cancer and cardiovascular mortality (obviously an increased risk in total mortality is impossible since we are all 100% likely to die). According to the study ???we found that consumption of red and processed meat was associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular mortality in both men and women???

In fact in everything I???ve read about this ???study??? (which was a questionnaire they sent out to AARP members). They bunch together red meat with processed meat. What the hell? Are we supposed to believe that a steak or ground beef has the same health risk as hotdogs and luncheon meat? I can only imagine how their ???study??? questionnaire was worded if they aren???t able to separate the words red meat and processed meat.

http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2009/040709/page5

Not science..

776cf39df980711e80fc02317eb64649

(892)

on July 23, 2011
at 01:04 PM

I'm pretty sure the iron content of red meat has something to do with increased rates of cancer. Also, to play devil's advocate: white meat is typically processed as often as red meat. So if they say white meat decreases cancer, I don't think the CAFO and the processing is solely to blame for the effects of red meat.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:27 AM

"red meat increases risk whereas white meat decreases it" That was the annoying bit, there are relativly few differences between them. Why not research those differences rather than one huge study after another looking for general associations.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:00 AM

... My guess would be the healthy-person bias, namely that all the (wealthy, educated, white) health freaks are eating lean chicken breasts and tuna and all the smoking, drinking, poor people are eating to (and admitting to) red meat.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:00 AM

Actually they DID find an increase in total mortality (as the linked article says) because the stat is not increased risk of death/cardiovascular death/cancer death tout court, but death after 10 years. With all these 'findings' I query how they think they can explain the fact that red meat increases risk whereas white meat decreases it? If the same studies find that sat fat isn't linked, then they can't blame that. Red/white meat are equally proteinous so it can't be that. So what is to blame- all the nutrients that you get in red meat but not white?...

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:09 AM

Reading that is annoying :)

4
Ef9f83cb4e1826261a44c173f733789e

on July 22, 2011
at 07:48 PM

The best response to articles like that is this Tom Naughton video:

http://youtu.be/y1RXvBveht0

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 22, 2011
at 08:46 PM

That speech is a thing of beauty.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:38 AM

Awesome! Tom Naughton is inimitable.

16a83c62c4650896080a9d3d94159059

(270)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:51 PM

This is the first time I have seen this presentation and I was blown away. Great link. It really breaks down the whole farce of what "experts" know on nutrition and scientific claims.

3
100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:32 AM

To me, the key word is "linked". In other words, it's an association, not something from which causality can be inferred. I don't think one even has to get into quality of meat hypotheticals. (Personally, I suspect that a diet of mainly CAFO meat is vastly healthier than a diet without meat.) Nothing causal can be concluded from the study.

2
Fe535c4994ac6176f76e1ff6d29eb08a

on July 22, 2011
at 07:45 PM

Gotta love articles like that, of course its HuffPo so I dont expect much more. I never take stories like that very seriously since there is nothing in there about what happens or what specifically was found. "Cuz its bad for you" is not reason enough for me to cut my meat intake in half or start something as assanine as Meatless Mondays.

Had they been a little more specific, I'm sure the usual suspects of the grant whore research organizations would have reared their ugly head. They briefly mentioned cancer and heart disease being linked, so I am sure they used the usual conclusion of "animals are high in sat fat which clogs arteries" which has been dispelled here more than once.

The really sad part is, I'm sure lots of your and my tax dollars went into making us more "informed."

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 22, 2011
at 11:27 PM

I think Huffington Post must be run by vegetarians!

1
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:15 AM

I'll stick to meat......it's what makes my engine burn clean.

0
Bb831ee0b2eb0c54731e0fa6f1a62058

on July 23, 2011
at 09:53 AM

I am doing paleo for about 7 months now as my main diet, i am not strict by any means , I would say i float around the 80 / 20 mark . I have put on weight and also my cholesterol seems a little high, think im gona cut back on the meat, and go more veg. Think with paleo i started thinking meat meat meat and forgot about some of the other paleo options.

Answer Question


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