8

votes

Hack this article about the dangers of pork by the Jaminets

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created February 09, 2012 at 4:49 AM

Oh dear. I eat pork a couple of times a week. Should I not be? This article associates it with cirrhosis of the liver. I'm interested to know what others here think. Thanks so much.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/perfect-health-diet/201202/is-pork-still-dangerous

Update, 2/16: See part 2:

So let???s add up the evidence and see where it leads:

  • First, the only potentially dangerous component of fresh natural pork, omega-6 fats, can???t account for the data.
  • Second, processed pork, which has other dangerous compounds like
    N-nitroso compounds, actually appears safer than fresh pork.
  • Third, fiber is protective against pork dangers.

To me these suggest that an infectious pathogen is the cause we are looking for.

Part 3 is up: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=5650

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on February 25, 2012
at 10:14 PM

Really great blog post by Ned

5a506bcfafe352e8fe11ebac285aa3e4

on February 25, 2012
at 08:40 PM

According to Dr. Daphne Miller in her book, Jungle Effects, the Okinawans have pork in every meal. But their pigs are free range and eat wild yams, so maybe this in the difference. It's no myth, they do eat pork in Okinawa.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on February 24, 2012
at 07:38 PM

Still no upvotes, even though I called it 2 weeks before Paul's post on hep E? Anyway, I'm not sure I even agree with Paul's analysis but (if something in pork is causing liver cancer) it wasn't hard to find the most likely culprit by using something I call google. So, I have a question for all of you who got it wrong -- why don't you do your own research? Knowledge at your fingertips today and you all wait for received wisdom from a few so-called gurus. Paul's great, as are a few others but really, why not learn to research and think for your self?

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on February 24, 2012
at 12:56 AM

Paul's third article just came out and primarily points to hep E. Yeah me! Will the uneducated masses on this forum finally upvote me when they realize I nailed it 2 weeks ago? Probably not. Idiots. It wasn't hard to figure out but 5 minutes of google scholar research is too hard for most people here I guess.

44739854bd06eb5c32af5d33aa866864

(859)

on February 17, 2012
at 09:55 PM

2 down votes, really...? It's not like I just tried to go to the site once and posted; I tried the links, I went to my bookmark, I typed it in by hand and still nothing... every other website worked, my internet wasn't down. I just thought they might have pulled the article or something...

B8592e62f9804ddabae73c1103d6bcb9

(1956)

on February 16, 2012
at 09:25 PM

So what's the difference between denaturing the proteins with vinegar to with heat?

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on February 13, 2012
at 08:05 PM

Not the paleo hacker? As your first choice...

4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

(646)

on February 13, 2012
at 02:34 PM

This is a good read that explains and dispels the Jaminet correlation. +1 Ned Kock

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on February 11, 2012
at 03:21 AM

You are sick, sick people...

D4d83e7981ca572aaaa19fc620bb54f1

(467)

on February 10, 2012
at 11:50 PM

I hadn't seen that post before, I'll take a look at it.

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on February 10, 2012
at 11:21 PM

I would be interested to know how the data compares looking at unprocessed pork vs. processed (bacon, sausage, ham, hot dogs) etc.) Red meat was correlated with cancer in studies where processed red meat (hot dogs) was included. In unprocessed red meat there was no correlation to cancer! It may be the additives and preservatives that are more problematic in processed pork then the meat itself. It will be interesting to see it play out.

F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:41 PM

If we were to start having strips of human with our eggs, I would definitely buy the Paleo-fed ones.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 12:02 PM

Live blood analysis is questionable: http://paleohacks.com/questions/70824/is-live-blood-analysis-real-science

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 10, 2012
at 11:36 AM

Matt, I would have, except he seems to tease in part 1 that it's more than just PUFA.

35a8b223ae5d863f17a8c9e3a8eed5eb

(571)

on February 10, 2012
at 08:53 AM

Every pork in my German Mensa is covered in breadcrumb coating. Our consumption of pork is mostly limited to Curry, Bratwurst, Schnitzel, wooden smoked bacon and cold cuts on whole grain bread accompanied by beer. Just saying.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:02 AM

I fixed your internet, that'll be $20.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:02 AM

Given my comment above and my fish oil supplementation (balance them PUFAs!), that's a distinct possibility, Namby. ;)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 02:59 AM

I predict part 2 will involve PUFA bashing. ;)

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 10:16 PM

Why is that relevant unless ur into cannibalism?

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on February 09, 2012
at 09:39 PM

The religious aspect of pork is thought by microbiologists to be related to parasite present in the meat during ancient times.

44739854bd06eb5c32af5d33aa866864

(859)

on February 09, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Wouldn't you know, I tried checking the website just now (using my link) and it works... but I have been honestly trying to get to the page all day; both by typing in the website and using the link posted above (and I even tried my own link) for the article without any luck... weird

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 08:59 PM

I don't doubt that they ate them. I suspect that we ate lots of other little critters, things that might not have needed butchery, things with less than bovine-gold-standard PUFAs. Or maybe they were all Robb Wolf's and could atel-atel an elk like nobody's business. ;)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 08:50 PM

It's just you. Been picking over his site since this was posted this morning.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on February 09, 2012
at 08:13 PM

Don't eat those NFL players. They are full of growth hormones and steroids. And don't try to pass that AstroTurf off as grass! And you should probably avoid anyone with excessive tatoos.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 07:33 PM

Yes, most bone depositions and butchering marks are on ruminants, though that doesn't tell us what % of the diet they were, they indicate that perhaps they were the primary prey. But the fat of even the non-ruminants we ate back then would have been considerable different from that of a domesticated pig.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:24 PM

@Matt, LOL, seriously!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:10 PM

Human is high in PUFA and low in omega-3! Be sure to supplement with oily fish if you're consuming human reguarly.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:09 PM

And yet we humans are more around 10% PUFA level...

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:06 PM

Is there evolutionary support though that we ate primarily ruminants?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:27 PM

Me too ruminants are more nutritious (more badass muscles) and have less omega-6, I was already sold on eating mostly ruminant meat.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:25 PM

@Namby Pamby, sorry I wasn't at all serious. I was just feeling light-hearted at the time. I ate a grilled bear steak as a child and it was dee-licious.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 09, 2012
at 05:13 PM

That said, Unger and Scherer's use of biblical gluttony and sloth wrt metabolic syndrome is still creepy: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2010/03/getting-fat-is-good-official.html

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 09, 2012
at 05:12 PM

akd, plus 1. I'm not particularly religious myself, but would find it interesting to connect something culturally or historically significant to an ancestral health concept.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 04:52 PM

I definitely think ruminants are the best meat to eat, but I am really really skeptical of the idea that pork causes liver damage.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:50 PM

someone mentions the bible and suddenly their motives and work are all suspect???

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:49 PM

Pig are omnivores yes and will munch on human carcass in the wild. So are animals like bears. Do humans eat bears? I know a family in Pennsylvania that regularly eats bear meat and can all the left over meat and stuff. Last time I checked, they were all still healthy.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:48 PM

trich is also found in some wild game.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:40 PM

Not when you compare to butter, ghee, coconut oil and presumably tallow. Under 4% for the first three.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:25 PM

Trichinosis perhaps?

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:20 PM

Since pigs are used as substitute humans for medical testing, and as potential transplant sources, I'm thinking it's quasi-cannibalism. Anyhow, in general predators don't eat predators and maybe omnivores shouldn't eat omnivores.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:19 PM

Since pigs are used as substitute humans for medical testing, and as potential transplant sources, I'm thinking it's quasi-cannibalism. Anyhow, in general predators don't eat predators and pigs are borderline.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:06 PM

Tastes like chicken.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on February 09, 2012
at 04:05 PM

I don't. Bahahaha this article is great.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:01 PM

+1 for bugger. Hi, Janet!

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 03:58 PM

GREAT discussion, gang! I'm solidly with Stabby on this one (sorry, Stabby, if that makes you question your logic.) I'm not changing how I eat but I'm keeping my ears wide open. When I still had my gallbladder, pork was the only meat I had to boil before browning because something that "boiled out" made me sick. Plus, we're always saying how smart traditional cultures were about food and, as Aaron says, "there's a long history of animosity toward pork in multiple cultures." That may or may not have been worms, etc., and in addition don't we talk about ruminants being our "ideal" meat?

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 09, 2012
at 03:56 PM

BTW, if I had to hazard a guess, I'm guessing that Paul's theory is related to pork (poorly cooked or not) being susceptible to some kind of parasitical/fungal infection. As Michael Pollan says "you are what you eat, eats." Pigs are not exactly the gourmands of the animal world.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 03:06 PM

http://paleohacks.com/questions/70824/is-live-blood-analysis-real-science

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 03:05 PM

Well, I started writing about possible issues with pork RE:omega-6 two years ago.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on February 09, 2012
at 02:02 PM

Melissa, bingo. I'm not attributing any agenda to the Jaminets, and I have no idea about their beliefs. But in general, there's a long history of animosity toward pork in multiple cultures, so you always have to consider how that colors people's thinking even outside those cultures. (I don't know how many times people have told me they don't eat pork because they're "filthy animals who sleep in their own manure," but having raised hogs and other livestock myself, I can tell you they're actually some of the cleanest animals.) There's never anything wrong with honest scientific inquiry, though.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 01:57 PM

Stabby, the fact that pork has a stronger correlation than alcohol is just so counterintuitive. That alone makes it suspect.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on February 09, 2012
at 01:28 PM

Lots of pork and no starch for me.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on February 09, 2012
at 12:48 PM

nice link, thanks.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 12:27 PM

I've yet to be impressed with the Jaminets...

E2b72f1912f777917d8ee6b7fba43c26

(2384)

on February 09, 2012
at 10:05 AM

Very interesting. Do you know why unmarinated pork causes such reactions?

25b139cc1954456d9ea469e40f984cd3

on February 09, 2012
at 09:09 AM

Are you suggesting that thin cured, dried slices of the Jaminets, properly seasoned and fried in a skillet for 5 minutes or so would be tasty and delicious, especially if served with a few eggs, fried sunny-side up?

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:58 AM

Paul quoted Jesus over at Emily Dean's blog post "The Glorious Cause." Which is neither here nor there in regards to nutrition, but it seemed odd then, and odder now; it seems out of place. Like Melissa, I wonder about an agenda. However, Stabby's got a lot of good points; religiousness aside, there's no reason NOT to take a closer look.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:41 AM

I should add that we have talked about production quality, at least some of us, but not really nutrient interactions like having enough vitamin e to prevent damage from heme, that sort of thing. And I'm glad to see someone playing devil's advocate and taking a risk with a hypothesis so we can look at it and ask if the dangers are real and if they are what kinds of things attenuate them and if they can ever be attenuated fully. So I predict that I'll like this discussion.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:40 AM

I should add that we have talked about production quality, at least some of us, but not really type and not preparation or nutritional necessity like not over-cooking it or having enough vitamin e to prevent damage from heme, that sort of thing. And I'm glad to see someone playing devil's advocate and taking a risk with a hypothesis so we can look at it and ask if the dangers are real and if they are what kinds of things attenuate them and if they can ever be attenuated fully. So I predict that I'll like this discussion.

Medium avatar

(2923)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:28 AM

We're going to have to wait and see. Even in the Conclusion, they're teasing us: "What can be behind those relationships? The relatively high omega-6 fat content of pork may be a contributing factor, but it can’t be the whole story. *It seems there is something else in pork that makes pork consumption risky.*" [emphasis mine]

Medium avatar

(2923)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:26 AM

And on Perfect Health Diet website: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=5569

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:22 AM

I think that it's high time that the paleophere had an open conversation about meat, has it ever? Is it all butterflies and rainbows or are there some potentially harmful things about some meats prepared in some ways within some contexts? Shouldn't we say something if there is? Robb Wolf was so reluctant to say anything about grilling, and what about the heme iron issue? Shouldn't we all try to understand why it could be a problem but isn't if we do X Y and Z? I think that we should try hard to falsify the belief that meats are unconditionally benign and should be open game.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:17 AM

I didn't even think of it and I don't like the bible one bit. This is mainly because I have never known Paul to have an agenda other than that of a diet author/blogger. He appears to be way too focused on helping people overcome/avoid health problems to let his message become adulterated. Or maybe that's the deception! Oh no what have you done to me, Melissa?! Nah, I'm not convinced, what if John Durant called one of his posts "Did Leviticus 19:27 have it right?" I wouldn't mention a passage from the bible in a scientific post, what about all it got wrong? But that's neither here nor there

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:14 AM

I didn't even think of it and I don't like the bible one bit. This mainly because I have never known Paul to have an agenda other than that of a diet author/blogger. He appears to be way too focused on helping people overcome/avoid health problems to let his message become adulterated. Or maybe that's the deception! Oh no what have you done to me, Melissa?! Nah, I'm not convinced, what if John Durant called one of his posts "Did Leviticus 19:27 have it right?" I wouldn't mention a passage from the bible in a scientific post, what about all that it got wrong? But that's neither here nor there.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:12 AM

one more low quality piece of evidence to the pile. This is probably just a benign tidbit. Now this is an agenda! http://www.amazon.com/Liberation-Diet-Setting-America-Misinformation/dp/1439207399

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:10 AM

I didn't even think of it and I don't like the bible one bit. This mainly because I have never known Paul to have an agenda other than that of a diet author/blogger. He appears to be way too focused on helping people overcome/avoid health problems to let his message become adulterated. Or maybe that's the deception! Oh no what have you done to me, Melissa?! Nah, I'm not convinced, what if John Durant called one of his posts "Did Leviticus 19:27 have it right?" There are truths to some biblical teachings, ancient people knew some things from trial and observation, and acknowledging it adds...

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 06:45 AM

The fact that they titled it "Did Leviticus 11:7 Have It Right?" makes me suspicious of their agenda.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 06:38 AM

Raise your hand if you eat pork and have any signs of liver damage. No one I know of...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:56 AM

The first post was only intended to be the grounds for a hypothesis, that's what epidemiology in nutrition is good for. Strong correlation implies a need to examine the potential for causation, and those are mighty strong correlations. More correlation for cirrhosis than alcohol! So we should look at this closely. I seriously doubt that the conclusion will be that pork is inherently unhealthy. Maybe something harmful but only in the context of certain nutrient deficiencies, only with some cooking or processing methods, etc. That was my comment. But I'm open to anything.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:55 AM

that seems like a pretty small amt of PUFAs in bacon and lard, compared to mono and sat fats

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:53 AM

The first post was only intended to be the grounds for a hypothesis, that's what epidemiology in nutrition is good for. Strong correlation implies a need to examine the potential for causation, and those are mighty strong correlations. More correlation for cirrhosis than alcohol! So we should look at this closely. I seriously doubt that the conclusion will be that pork is inherently unhealthy. Maybe something to do with harm but only in the context of certain nutrient deficiencies, only with some cooking methods or processing methods, etc. That was my comment. But I'm open to anything.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:28 AM

Pretty startling. Don't have the time to really read it but I doubt it as pork has been consumed since time immemorial. Processed meats based on pork (cold cuts, salami, pepperoni), I can believe but pork loins and pork chops? There have been better days for the "other white meat."

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:27 AM

Well damn!!! How 'bout a side of anxiety with that bacon.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 05:25 AM

Maybe they'll have something better in the next post though?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 05:25 AM

I know, this is like The China Study quality data here.

  • F44b15b2fd1ad134200793d6b474fc4c

    asked by

    (938)
  • Views
    4.9K
  • Last Activity
    1409D AGO
Frontpage book

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

16 Answers

19
Ce7e28769d92d5de5533e775b1de966e

on February 09, 2012
at 02:21 PM

Great points Stabby! And now..

How do I love thee? I love thee five ways. I love thee for your meat both dark and white My soul soars high, when roasting pig all night For pork and fire do put me in a daze.

I love thee over coals Or basted under the broilers fiery light I love thee freely, as I salt just right I love thee purely...please Pig feed my needs.

I love thee with the passion for the juice In pigs cooked slowly over the gas stoves flame. I love thee with hunger I thought I'd lose Until I smelt the cooked beast that flame did tame. Smiles, tears, now Jaminet's swine article evokes big oohs, I'd only love thee better cooked six ways.

17
20cc903ebccaeb1e652da3a596e8dfb4

(1038)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:22 AM

Correlation does not imply causation. End of discussion. I thought we were all smarter than this?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 05:25 AM

Maybe they'll have something better in the next post though?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:10 AM

I didn't even think of it and I don't like the bible one bit. This mainly because I have never known Paul to have an agenda other than that of a diet author/blogger. He appears to be way too focused on helping people overcome/avoid health problems to let his message become adulterated. Or maybe that's the deception! Oh no what have you done to me, Melissa?! Nah, I'm not convinced, what if John Durant called one of his posts "Did Leviticus 19:27 have it right?" There are truths to some biblical teachings, ancient people knew some things from trial and observation, and acknowledging it adds...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:41 AM

I should add that we have talked about production quality, at least some of us, but not really nutrient interactions like having enough vitamin e to prevent damage from heme, that sort of thing. And I'm glad to see someone playing devil's advocate and taking a risk with a hypothesis so we can look at it and ask if the dangers are real and if they are what kinds of things attenuate them and if they can ever be attenuated fully. So I predict that I'll like this discussion.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:58 AM

Paul quoted Jesus over at Emily Dean's blog post "The Glorious Cause." Which is neither here nor there in regards to nutrition, but it seemed odd then, and odder now; it seems out of place. Like Melissa, I wonder about an agenda. However, Stabby's got a lot of good points; religiousness aside, there's no reason NOT to take a closer look.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:12 AM

one more low quality piece of evidence to the pile. This is probably just a benign tidbit. Now this is an agenda! http://www.amazon.com/Liberation-Diet-Setting-America-Misinformation/dp/1439207399

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on February 09, 2012
at 02:02 PM

Melissa, bingo. I'm not attributing any agenda to the Jaminets, and I have no idea about their beliefs. But in general, there's a long history of animosity toward pork in multiple cultures, so you always have to consider how that colors people's thinking even outside those cultures. (I don't know how many times people have told me they don't eat pork because they're "filthy animals who sleep in their own manure," but having raised hogs and other livestock myself, I can tell you they're actually some of the cleanest animals.) There's never anything wrong with honest scientific inquiry, though.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 08:59 PM

I don't doubt that they ate them. I suspect that we ate lots of other little critters, things that might not have needed butchery, things with less than bovine-gold-standard PUFAs. Or maybe they were all Robb Wolf's and could atel-atel an elk like nobody's business. ;)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 01:57 PM

Stabby, the fact that pork has a stronger correlation than alcohol is just so counterintuitive. That alone makes it suspect.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:27 PM

Me too ruminants are more nutritious (more badass muscles) and have less omega-6, I was already sold on eating mostly ruminant meat.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 05:25 AM

I know, this is like The China Study quality data here.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:53 AM

The first post was only intended to be the grounds for a hypothesis, that's what epidemiology in nutrition is good for. Strong correlation implies a need to examine the potential for causation, and those are mighty strong correlations. More correlation for cirrhosis than alcohol! So we should look at this closely. I seriously doubt that the conclusion will be that pork is inherently unhealthy. Maybe something to do with harm but only in the context of certain nutrient deficiencies, only with some cooking methods or processing methods, etc. That was my comment. But I'm open to anything.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:17 AM

I didn't even think of it and I don't like the bible one bit. This is mainly because I have never known Paul to have an agenda other than that of a diet author/blogger. He appears to be way too focused on helping people overcome/avoid health problems to let his message become adulterated. Or maybe that's the deception! Oh no what have you done to me, Melissa?! Nah, I'm not convinced, what if John Durant called one of his posts "Did Leviticus 19:27 have it right?" I wouldn't mention a passage from the bible in a scientific post, what about all it got wrong? But that's neither here nor there

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 04:52 PM

I definitely think ruminants are the best meat to eat, but I am really really skeptical of the idea that pork causes liver damage.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:28 AM

Pretty startling. Don't have the time to really read it but I doubt it as pork has been consumed since time immemorial. Processed meats based on pork (cold cuts, salami, pepperoni), I can believe but pork loins and pork chops? There have been better days for the "other white meat."

Medium avatar

(2923)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:28 AM

We're going to have to wait and see. Even in the Conclusion, they're teasing us: "What can be behind those relationships? The relatively high omega-6 fat content of pork may be a contributing factor, but it can’t be the whole story. *It seems there is something else in pork that makes pork consumption risky.*" [emphasis mine]

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 03:05 PM

Well, I started writing about possible issues with pork RE:omega-6 two years ago.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 03:58 PM

GREAT discussion, gang! I'm solidly with Stabby on this one (sorry, Stabby, if that makes you question your logic.) I'm not changing how I eat but I'm keeping my ears wide open. When I still had my gallbladder, pork was the only meat I had to boil before browning because something that "boiled out" made me sick. Plus, we're always saying how smart traditional cultures were about food and, as Aaron says, "there's a long history of animosity toward pork in multiple cultures." That may or may not have been worms, etc., and in addition don't we talk about ruminants being our "ideal" meat?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:40 AM

I should add that we have talked about production quality, at least some of us, but not really type and not preparation or nutritional necessity like not over-cooking it or having enough vitamin e to prevent damage from heme, that sort of thing. And I'm glad to see someone playing devil's advocate and taking a risk with a hypothesis so we can look at it and ask if the dangers are real and if they are what kinds of things attenuate them and if they can ever be attenuated fully. So I predict that I'll like this discussion.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:22 AM

I think that it's high time that the paleophere had an open conversation about meat, has it ever? Is it all butterflies and rainbows or are there some potentially harmful things about some meats prepared in some ways within some contexts? Shouldn't we say something if there is? Robb Wolf was so reluctant to say anything about grilling, and what about the heme iron issue? Shouldn't we all try to understand why it could be a problem but isn't if we do X Y and Z? I think that we should try hard to falsify the belief that meats are unconditionally benign and should be open game.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 07:33 PM

Yes, most bone depositions and butchering marks are on ruminants, though that doesn't tell us what % of the diet they were, they indicate that perhaps they were the primary prey. But the fat of even the non-ruminants we ate back then would have been considerable different from that of a domesticated pig.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 06:45 AM

The fact that they titled it "Did Leviticus 11:7 Have It Right?" makes me suspicious of their agenda.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:06 PM

Is there evolutionary support though that we ate primarily ruminants?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:56 AM

The first post was only intended to be the grounds for a hypothesis, that's what epidemiology in nutrition is good for. Strong correlation implies a need to examine the potential for causation, and those are mighty strong correlations. More correlation for cirrhosis than alcohol! So we should look at this closely. I seriously doubt that the conclusion will be that pork is inherently unhealthy. Maybe something harmful but only in the context of certain nutrient deficiencies, only with some cooking or processing methods, etc. That was my comment. But I'm open to anything.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on February 09, 2012
at 07:14 AM

I didn't even think of it and I don't like the bible one bit. This mainly because I have never known Paul to have an agenda other than that of a diet author/blogger. He appears to be way too focused on helping people overcome/avoid health problems to let his message become adulterated. Or maybe that's the deception! Oh no what have you done to me, Melissa?! Nah, I'm not convinced, what if John Durant called one of his posts "Did Leviticus 19:27 have it right?" I wouldn't mention a passage from the bible in a scientific post, what about all that it got wrong? But that's neither here nor there.

35a8b223ae5d863f17a8c9e3a8eed5eb

(571)

on February 10, 2012
at 08:53 AM

Every pork in my German Mensa is covered in breadcrumb coating. Our consumption of pork is mostly limited to Curry, Bratwurst, Schnitzel, wooden smoked bacon and cold cuts on whole grain bread accompanied by beer. Just saying.

11
26b0f1261d1a0d916825bd0deeb96a21

(5798)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:31 AM

Jaminet has not said this, but my Korean friend recounted the horrors of human flesh being passed off as pork in poor regions, true and sick. Perhaps, we midht worry about the possible implications of eating flesh that so closely resembles our own? It does make me feel a bit better in the event that I turn out to be a zombie/cannibal, though. Some pineapple and teriyaki sauce might brighten up the apocalypse. Inappropriate? Yes. Hopeful? Certainly.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:24 PM

@Matt, LOL, seriously!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:10 PM

Human is high in PUFA and low in omega-3! Be sure to supplement with oily fish if you're consuming human reguarly.

F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:41 PM

If we were to start having strips of human with our eggs, I would definitely buy the Paleo-fed ones.

25b139cc1954456d9ea469e40f984cd3

on February 09, 2012
at 09:09 AM

Are you suggesting that thin cured, dried slices of the Jaminets, properly seasoned and fried in a skillet for 5 minutes or so would be tasty and delicious, especially if served with a few eggs, fried sunny-side up?

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on February 09, 2012
at 08:13 PM

Don't eat those NFL players. They are full of growth hormones and steroids. And don't try to pass that AstroTurf off as grass! And you should probably avoid anyone with excessive tatoos.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:06 PM

Tastes like chicken.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on February 11, 2012
at 03:21 AM

You are sick, sick people...

10
703aed192d57a3b7ca9c459eee1cf9e5

on February 13, 2012
at 01:32 PM

4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

(646)

on February 13, 2012
at 02:34 PM

This is a good read that explains and dispels the Jaminet correlation. +1 Ned Kock

5
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on February 13, 2012
at 03:30 PM

Apparently, Paul isn't alone on exploring this area. Ned Kock's post is up this morning... http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-pork-consumption-cause-cirrhosis.html

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on February 25, 2012
at 10:14 PM

Really great blog post by Ned

5
4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:34 PM

Hepatitis E....

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on February 24, 2012
at 12:56 AM

Paul's third article just came out and primarily points to hep E. Yeah me! Will the uneducated masses on this forum finally upvote me when they realize I nailed it 2 weeks ago? Probably not. Idiots. It wasn't hard to figure out but 5 minutes of google scholar research is too hard for most people here I guess.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on February 24, 2012
at 07:38 PM

Still no upvotes, even though I called it 2 weeks before Paul's post on hep E? Anyway, I'm not sure I even agree with Paul's analysis but (if something in pork is causing liver cancer) it wasn't hard to find the most likely culprit by using something I call google. So, I have a question for all of you who got it wrong -- why don't you do your own research? Knowledge at your fingertips today and you all wait for received wisdom from a few so-called gurus. Paul's great, as are a few others but really, why not learn to research and think for your self?

5
7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 09, 2012
at 03:43 PM

It's likely that my respect for the Jaminets' has a lot to do with my take on this, but I gotta say ... remain calm ... all is well!

I realize that bacon is sacrosanct with paleo folks, but ever since reading why Kurt Harris favored ruminants over pork a year or so ago on Archevore, I thought that -- all other things being equal -- it was not an irrational act to moderate pork consumption.

That said, it is useful to consider these things in context. I drive to work in DC every day which is probably a lot riskier than my drinking stevia in my iced tea. OTOH, I sure as heck avoid industrial/CAFO pork.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm certainly willing to wait until part 2. And as an aside, the Jaminets are Catholic which is not a religion that forbids pork.

Update, 2/16: Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Ref my comment below, in part 2, Paul writes:

To me these suggest that an infectious pathogen is the cause we are looking for.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:48 PM

trich is also found in some wild game.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:25 PM

@Namby Pamby, sorry I wasn't at all serious. I was just feeling light-hearted at the time. I ate a grilled bear steak as a child and it was dee-licious.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 09, 2012
at 03:56 PM

BTW, if I had to hazard a guess, I'm guessing that Paul's theory is related to pork (poorly cooked or not) being susceptible to some kind of parasitical/fungal infection. As Michael Pollan says "you are what you eat, eats." Pigs are not exactly the gourmands of the animal world.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:20 PM

Since pigs are used as substitute humans for medical testing, and as potential transplant sources, I'm thinking it's quasi-cannibalism. Anyhow, in general predators don't eat predators and maybe omnivores shouldn't eat omnivores.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:25 PM

Trichinosis perhaps?

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:49 PM

Pig are omnivores yes and will munch on human carcass in the wild. So are animals like bears. Do humans eat bears? I know a family in Pennsylvania that regularly eats bear meat and can all the left over meat and stuff. Last time I checked, they were all still healthy.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:19 PM

Since pigs are used as substitute humans for medical testing, and as potential transplant sources, I'm thinking it's quasi-cannibalism. Anyhow, in general predators don't eat predators and pigs are borderline.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on February 10, 2012
at 11:36 AM

Matt, I would have, except he seems to tease in part 1 that it's more than just PUFA.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 02:59 AM

I predict part 2 will involve PUFA bashing. ;)

5
1242ce7530f9e4e63e42777fa194235f

on February 09, 2012
at 05:56 AM

BUGGER! I thought it was alcohol that mucked with my liver... NOW I should give up pork too?? This is all getting too hard...

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:01 PM

+1 for bugger. Hi, Janet!

3
Medium avatar

on February 13, 2012
at 07:33 PM

It's fairly easy to replicate the diet of a wild ruminant (or herbivorous monogastric, I suppose) on a farm, but it's far more difficult with an omnivore, hence our own personal difficulties. As such, if one were to source 100% of their meat from wild javelina or something there would be no problem. I'd wager that traditionally produced pigs in certain parts of Europe are likely largely as healthy, though you'd be hard-pressed to find that sort of thing in the States.

Safest route is always to eat healthy animals, whatever their species may be. We know that commercially-produced pigs are not healthy because their diets are basically the same as those of unhealthy SAD-eaters. Organic pork? Organic SAD. The grains/legumes may not be processed into identifiable garbage food, but it's still a garbage diet.

If I were invited to a Donner Party, my first choice wouldn't be the SAD-eater.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on February 13, 2012
at 08:05 PM

Not the paleo hacker? As your first choice...

3
Cbda678b2a6bf0537d8c4ea0ce8aa9ad

(4319)

on February 09, 2012
at 09:30 AM

http://www.foodrenegade.com/pork-bad-for-you/

interesting article about what pork actually does to blood cells

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on February 09, 2012
at 12:48 PM

nice link, thanks.

E2b72f1912f777917d8ee6b7fba43c26

(2384)

on February 09, 2012
at 10:05 AM

Very interesting. Do you know why unmarinated pork causes such reactions?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 09, 2012
at 03:06 PM

http://paleohacks.com/questions/70824/is-live-blood-analysis-real-science

1
8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on February 25, 2012
at 10:08 PM

I don't see how we as a subculture, can demonize certain epidemiological studies and at the same time uphold other epidemiological studies as providing some sort of better truth. Whether it is a 7-country study or this study, these types of "correlations" as they call them, are misleading, and usually overstate the relationship. What I would also be concerned about it that anecdotally, cultures who eat tons of pork tended to be located far inland. I would wonder if any perceived relationship would really be a plot of the function of the lack of seafood. I know in my own family, we all come from inland areas and moved to other inland areas. Pork is very common there, and ocean seafood was rare until the 1960's. That said, maybe there is something to this, certainly worth taking a closer look.

1
D4d83e7981ca572aaaa19fc620bb54f1

(467)

on February 10, 2012
at 08:04 AM

The deal with pork could be just preparation. If true, then bacon, ham and marinated pork are fine:

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Consuming unmarinated cooked pastured pork produces blood coagulation and clotting in blood examined at five hours after eating; however, consuming marinated cooked pork does not produce any blood coagulation or clotting.

  2. Consuming processed forms of pastured uncured pork, including bacon and prosciutto, does not produce any blood coagulation or other visible changes in the blood at five hours after eating.

  3. Consuming unmarinated cooked pastured lamb does not produce any blood coagulation or other visible changes in the blood at five hours after eating.

  4. No changes in white blood cell activity, white blood cell clumping, crystals, microbes, or spicules (indicating liver stress), were found before or after consumption of all five preparations of pork and lamb.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 12:02 PM

Live blood analysis is questionable: http://paleohacks.com/questions/70824/is-live-blood-analysis-real-science

D4d83e7981ca572aaaa19fc620bb54f1

(467)

on February 10, 2012
at 11:50 PM

I hadn't seen that post before, I'll take a look at it.

B8592e62f9804ddabae73c1103d6bcb9

(1956)

on February 16, 2012
at 09:25 PM

So what's the difference between denaturing the proteins with vinegar to with heat?

1
193b7fb0fec8913d5ebb3b99a04d21c6

(2918)

on February 09, 2012
at 02:42 PM

The Old Testament says I shouldn't eat it either, but I do.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on February 09, 2012
at 04:05 PM

I don't. Bahahaha this article is great.

1
3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

on February 09, 2012
at 05:43 AM

Okay, well, there wasn't much in that first article except epdemiological observations but I await what the Jaminets will bring to the table next time. Paul has previously talked about the dangers of PUFA when mixed with sugar. For example, combining fish with fructose. I thought that sounded a bit fanatical but it does seem to make sense. A wine expert from Brazil I met told me never to mix sweet dessert wines with fish, both for taste and health reasons.

Some whilea go, I stopped frying things in bacon grease after finding out how much PUFA is in it. Bacon grease has 8% PUFA, 48% saturated fat, and 44% MUFA. Lard is similar: 12% PUFA, 41% saturated fat, 47% MUFA.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on February 09, 2012
at 05:55 AM

that seems like a pretty small amt of PUFAs in bacon and lard, compared to mono and sat fats

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 04:40 PM

Not when you compare to butter, ghee, coconut oil and presumably tallow. Under 4% for the first three.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 06:09 PM

And yet we humans are more around 10% PUFA level...

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:02 AM

Given my comment above and my fish oil supplementation (balance them PUFAs!), that's a distinct possibility, Namby. ;)

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on February 09, 2012
at 10:16 PM

Why is that relevant unless ur into cannibalism?

5a506bcfafe352e8fe11ebac285aa3e4

on February 25, 2012
at 08:40 PM

According to Dr. Daphne Miller in her book, Jungle Effects, the Okinawans have pork in every meal. But their pigs are free range and eat wild yams, so maybe this in the difference. It's no myth, they do eat pork in Okinawa.

0
44739854bd06eb5c32af5d33aa866864

(859)

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

Does anyone else find it interesting that Paul Jaminet's site has been down all day? Or is it just me?

44739854bd06eb5c32af5d33aa866864

(859)

on February 09, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Wouldn't you know, I tried checking the website just now (using my link) and it works... but I have been honestly trying to get to the page all day; both by typing in the website and using the link posted above (and I even tried my own link) for the article without any luck... weird

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2012
at 03:02 AM

I fixed your internet, that'll be $20.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 09, 2012
at 08:50 PM

It's just you. Been picking over his site since this was posted this morning.

44739854bd06eb5c32af5d33aa866864

(859)

on February 17, 2012
at 09:55 PM

2 down votes, really...? It's not like I just tried to go to the site once and posted; I tried the links, I went to my bookmark, I typed it in by hand and still nothing... every other website worked, my internet wasn't down. I just thought they might have pulled the article or something...

0
11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on February 28, 2012
at 09:33 PM

Psychology Today has an article about the dangers of eating pork?

Isn't this a little outside their area of expertise? Before you know it, we'll have Popular Mechanics running articles on nutrition.

Answer Question


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