6

votes

Latest from Nurses Health Study, etc.

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created July 21, 2011 at 7:39 AM

The New York Times has an article on the latest out of the Nurses??? Health Study, Nurses??? Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Some of the findings predictive of weight gain are in line with Paleo; others are not:

The foods that contributed to the greatest weight gain were not surprising. French fries led the list: Increased consumption of this food alone was linked to an average weight gain of 3.4 pounds in each four-year period. Other important contributors were potato chips (1.7 pounds), sugar-sweetened drinks (1 pound), red meats and processed meats (0.95 and 0.93 pound, respectively), other forms of potatoes (0.57 pound), sweets and desserts (0.41 pound), refined grains (0.39 pound), other fried foods (0.32 pound), 100-percent fruit juice (0.31 pound) and butter (0.3 pound).

Question 1: The only things that most of us would disagree with here are the red meats and the butter. Can we attribute these discrepancies to recall bias? Doesn't that taint all the other findings that we agree with (which, let's face it, are in the great majority). Maybe it's because they don't distinguish between grass fed and regular supermarket meat? Does that mean we should only eat red meat if we can afford grass fed? But why the butter?

They also enumerated what, according to the study, leads to weight loss:

Also not too surprising were most of the foods that resulted in weight loss or no gain when consumed in greater amounts during the study: fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Compared with those who gained the most weight, participants in the Nurses??? Health Study who lost weight consumed 3.1 more servings of vegetables each day.

They also mention that yogurt and nuts are associated with long-term weight loss.

Question 2: Here, we would all agree with the veggies and some of us would agree with moderate fruit intake. But whole grains? I know they're marginally better than refined grains, but still.

On the whole, I think most of these results are in line with Paleo, which is refreshing and somewhat surprising. However, I can't seem to figure out why increased butter and red meat intake is associated with weight gain, while whole grains are associated with weight loss. My initial thought is that people who choose to eat whole grains over refined grains do so mostly to lead "healthy" (albeit SAD) lives; therefore, in other aspects of their lives they would also choose healthier behaviors that could confound the findings (e.g. they floss, they choose to take the stairs more often, etc...all those little factors that go unmeasured but that could add up to a big protective effect).

Since this is Harvard, they did of course adjust for the usual: physical activity, smoking, etc. Here's a link to the abstract.

Thoughts?

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

amen, tom. i should have also mentioned my parents are losing weight and improving their health on cafo beef. no it's not optimal but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 22, 2011
at 10:08 AM

how you cook the salmon determines your 6/3 ratio. How you cook you meat does the same. This is how I micromanage my 6/3 ratio. Steaming salmon produces several times as much oxidized cholesterol as frying it. Seems counter intuitive until you read the data. The longer cooking time allows the polyunsaturated fatty acids to break down, producing toxic by products and free radicals that oxidize the cholesterol and other components of the fish. The oxidized cholesterol content of steamed salmon was much higher than that of beef cooked at a high temperature. Cooking matters.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 22, 2011
at 01:23 AM

I don't mean to be nit picky here, but how is it mathematically possible for the omega 6 to be the same, but the omega 3 to be increased? I would think the 6 would have to decrease per unit as the 3 increased.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 22, 2011
at 12:37 AM

I didn't think you were suggesting that we base our choices on what they were presenting, I was just trying to poke holes in their "controls" for the study and try to figure out what might be unregulated variables. I think you are definitely on to something with "healthier" diet choices corresponding with other healthy lifestyle choices.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 21, 2011
at 11:55 PM

I didn't think you were suggesting that we base our choices on what they were presenting, I was just trying to poke holes in their "controls" for the study and try to figure out what might be unregulated variables. I think you definitely on to something with "healthier" diet choices corresponding with other healthy lifestyle choices.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:24 PM

quilt, from what i've read from different sources is this. you want to do 2 things, keep your ratio between 1:1 and 3:1 and keep total pufa's under 4% of your caloric intake. i do both by either eating 8-12 oz of salmon 3 times a week or when it's too expensive, supplementing a couple capsules of fish oil. btw, the amount of omega 6 in grainfed beef is the same as in grassfed beef, it just doesn't have enough omega 3 to bring it in balance. hence why i recommend oily fish or fish oil in addition to if eating conventional.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:11 PM

Losing weight is one aspect. Being healthy as one ages is quite another

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:10 PM

Anyone who eats grain fed beef should get an omega six three ratio. If it above ten to one you have your answer. If it is high you need to stop it immediately. Omega six is bad no matter how you get it. It's something a patient needs to know and then decide what to do with regardless of money. Being I'll costs more in the long run and that is something that the patients has to decide

2d090e680d86e2c768edb40b4b433978

(384)

on July 21, 2011
at 05:02 PM

There was a study discussed over at Tender Grassfed Meat, looking at the omega-3 difference. I'm sure the NHS didn't control that variable. As for the butter, I personally use the pastured stuff as opposed to Land O'Lakes, which has more vit A, D, CLA, etc... Anyway, here's the link: http://www.tendergrassfedmeat.com/2011/07/19/finally-modern-study-proves-the-benefits-of-grassfed-meat/

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 02:17 PM

Weight gain is a stupid marker for health because weight fluctuates for normal people. Drinking some additional water or having a huge carb meal could easily skew results.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 02:16 PM

Red meat caused them to gain .95lbs over 4 years. I would hardly call that bulking but it definitely could all be lean mass.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 01:45 PM

Cliff, this isn't a fatal flaw just because they didn't submerge everyone to rule out the outside chance that a significant portion of the people who gained weight were bulking up (for the office football league?) Its a practical necessity if anything. Large studies have to make sacrifices in order to be efficient enough to be done. That doesn't disqualify the results. Very little common sense needs to be applied to understand that they were looking for increases in body fat. Had a significant number of people started bulking up, it would have been noted as an "interesting finding"

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 01:24 PM

Its good to know that the study doesn't get super precise though. Would the snapshot be likely to ask participants to classify their own meals? Or would it ask what they ate and then the researchers classify the results after the data is collected?

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 01:23 PM

I think part of why you can't always reconcile the two is that paleo isnt right 100% of the time. Its the best we've got right now, but I think the paleo community gets a little too alarmist over some things. Eating whole grains isn't going to kill most people out there. Drinking a soda won't set you back 2 months and give you a gut. Non GF beef isn't horrible. I could be wrong, but thats what I've come up with after some self observation and common sense.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:57 PM

If they want to have it be accurate then yes I would expect them to submerge everyone.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:41 PM

If you look at the increasing rates of obesity, I would agree with TomInTexas that the great majority of people are gaining fat, not bulking up. And no, it's not a perfect metric, but with 120,000 people what should they have done instead? Submerge everyone in water to get a precise body-fat measurement?

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:38 PM

I guess I should add that I'm in Epidemiology (though not Nutritional Epi) so I would like my field to bear out what I already know from Paleo about real nutrition. And it seems like it's moving in that direction, even though it's not a perfect endorsement.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:35 PM

Tom you doubt that but that doesn't make it true. I;m just pointing out some fatal flaws in this study.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:34 PM

It does leave a lot to be desired; but, one way of looking at it is that it's a snapshot every two years (i.e. I don't think they ask you what you ate over the last two years, but what you eat now). With that many people involved (more than 120,000) you can't be super-precise. I'm in health sciences, too, Epi in fact, and it bothers me that I can't always reconcile the two (my Paleo beliefs and Nutritional Epi). I do think the study designs aren't great either. I don't know...it's frustrating but at least the science is bearing out our beliefs on sugar, trans fats, and processed foods.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:33 PM

The biggest issue with this study imo is that we have no idea what the weight gain is. Did people gain weight eating red meat because they gained muscle? Also people can gain weight on just about any food so I don't get what it would even mean health wise if all there findings were true.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:31 PM

They seem to have focused the study on obesity and its causes. I doubt anyone who gained 4lbs per year in this study was bulking up and putting on muscle.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:29 PM

I lost all of my weight on cheap supermarket meats. Nothing organic or GF about it. GF and organic are great, but if its not in your budget normal meats are still better than SAD

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:24 PM

Clinical trials are not truly random either, because people drop out (whether they're lost to follow-up, don't like the side effects, waited until they got payed and left, etc.) and it's safe to assume that the people who drop out are different than the people that don't. I'm in epidemiology, and while it's not perfect, it's not worthless either. There's bias in every kind of study, although admittedly observational studies are more susceptible. But this is a prospective cohort, which is the best of the best in epi. I'm just trying to make sense of it, critique the study.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:23 PM

I lost my weight on almost exclusively on organic grainfed. The thing about grainfedis more about what it's missing but there's roundabout ways to get it in your diet. (pastured butter with a side of fish oil anyone?)

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:19 PM

They adjust for bread consumption (both whole grain and refined carbohydrates separately) so it's just the meat (or, @Nemesis, the butter). If you look at the paper, they adjust for a lot, every other major type of food is in the regression equation. The sample size is so large that they can do that without blowing up the model.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:13 PM

For the majority of the participants in the study, you're probably right (in that the study didn't ask them where these things came from). So does that mean that if you're poor, and can't afford grass-fed beef, you should refrain from eating red meat? Is the supermarket variety really that bad for you? I love a steak, but they're already expensive, and I'm just a student so I don't have loads to spend...

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:12 PM

That may be true but I doubt these items being pasture fed would have too much of a difference on weight gain

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:12 PM

That's may be true but I doubt these items being pasture fed would have too much of a difference on weight gain.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 21, 2011
at 11:27 AM

Same goes for the butter, they're probably smearing it on rolls, muffins or adding a ton of it to recipes. I use ghee in cooking, but it's too concentrated to use as a straight spread.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on July 21, 2011
at 10:15 AM

Welcome Heather! Yes, I suspect that in SAD populations (how many of the nurses are Paleo?) meat eating would correlate with unhealthy behaviors otherwise, and the whole grain eaters probably also eat piles of vegetables. It would be interesting to see all the variables that they controlled for.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 08:49 AM

I'm not suggesting that we live our lives by the results of studies, but I do think it's interesting that the evidence is increasingly listing towards Paleo-ness, at least more so now than in the past. But what is somewhat perplexing is that is seems to be a mixed bag, where they're sometimes on the mark and sometimes not. Also, they would have adjusted for the bread going with the butter but, you're right, it doesn't look like they adjusted for jam or BBQ sauce or the like...

  • A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

    asked by

    (363)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1406D AGO
Frontpage book

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

8 Answers

8
2d090e680d86e2c768edb40b4b433978

on July 21, 2011
at 09:50 AM

In regards to the red meat, wouldn't most SAD people be eating hamburgers on buns, hot dogs on buns, and deli meats on buns? Is it the red meat, or the buns?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 21, 2011
at 11:27 AM

Same goes for the butter, they're probably smearing it on rolls, muffins or adding a ton of it to recipes. I use ghee in cooking, but it's too concentrated to use as a straight spread.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:19 PM

They adjust for bread consumption (both whole grain and refined carbohydrates separately) so it's just the meat (or, @Nemesis, the butter). If you look at the paper, they adjust for a lot, every other major type of food is in the regression equation. The sample size is so large that they can do that without blowing up the model.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on July 21, 2011
at 10:15 AM

Welcome Heather! Yes, I suspect that in SAD populations (how many of the nurses are Paleo?) meat eating would correlate with unhealthy behaviors otherwise, and the whole grain eaters probably also eat piles of vegetables. It would be interesting to see all the variables that they controlled for.

2d090e680d86e2c768edb40b4b433978

(384)

on July 21, 2011
at 05:02 PM

There was a study discussed over at Tender Grassfed Meat, looking at the omega-3 difference. I'm sure the NHS didn't control that variable. As for the butter, I personally use the pastured stuff as opposed to Land O'Lakes, which has more vit A, D, CLA, etc... Anyway, here's the link: http://www.tendergrassfedmeat.com/2011/07/19/finally-modern-study-proves-the-benefits-of-grassfed-meat/

5
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 10:56 AM

They're findings are based on correlations in a epidemiological study, basically that means that these findings mean jack squat for the most part. Until they do clinical trials the conclusions don't hold a lot of bearing.

Potato products for example are correlated with one of the highest weight gains but it probably has very little to do with the potatoes and more to do with the polyunsaturated fats that the potatoes are fried in, french fries/chips are a lot easier to eat then mashed potatoes. Likewise with meat and butter, SAD people don't eat these plain they eat them in extravagant recipes with other toxic foods that enable them to vastly overeat.

Whole grains are harder to digest and way harder to overeat on.

They don;t say what the weight gain is either, muscle, fat, water, glycogen?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 02:16 PM

Red meat caused them to gain .95lbs over 4 years. I would hardly call that bulking but it definitely could all be lean mass.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 01:45 PM

Cliff, this isn't a fatal flaw just because they didn't submerge everyone to rule out the outside chance that a significant portion of the people who gained weight were bulking up (for the office football league?) Its a practical necessity if anything. Large studies have to make sacrifices in order to be efficient enough to be done. That doesn't disqualify the results. Very little common sense needs to be applied to understand that they were looking for increases in body fat. Had a significant number of people started bulking up, it would have been noted as an "interesting finding"

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:24 PM

Clinical trials are not truly random either, because people drop out (whether they're lost to follow-up, don't like the side effects, waited until they got payed and left, etc.) and it's safe to assume that the people who drop out are different than the people that don't. I'm in epidemiology, and while it's not perfect, it's not worthless either. There's bias in every kind of study, although admittedly observational studies are more susceptible. But this is a prospective cohort, which is the best of the best in epi. I'm just trying to make sense of it, critique the study.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:57 PM

If they want to have it be accurate then yes I would expect them to submerge everyone.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 02:17 PM

Weight gain is a stupid marker for health because weight fluctuates for normal people. Drinking some additional water or having a huge carb meal could easily skew results.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:33 PM

The biggest issue with this study imo is that we have no idea what the weight gain is. Did people gain weight eating red meat because they gained muscle? Also people can gain weight on just about any food so I don't get what it would even mean health wise if all there findings were true.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:41 PM

If you look at the increasing rates of obesity, I would agree with TomInTexas that the great majority of people are gaining fat, not bulking up. And no, it's not a perfect metric, but with 120,000 people what should they have done instead? Submerge everyone in water to get a precise body-fat measurement?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:35 PM

Tom you doubt that but that doesn't make it true. I;m just pointing out some fatal flaws in this study.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:31 PM

They seem to have focused the study on obesity and its causes. I doubt anyone who gained 4lbs per year in this study was bulking up and putting on muscle.

4
332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

on July 21, 2011
at 12:00 PM

I liked this part:

Alcohol intake had an interesting relationship to weight changes. No significant effect was found among those who increased their intake to one glass of wine a day, but increases in other forms of alcohol were likely to bring added pounds.

It makes me feel better about the glass of wine I had last night. Not that I needed much of an excuse, but its nice to find one :)

Their research method leaves much to be desired:

Every two years, they completed very detailed questionnaires about their eating and other habits and current weight.

How much do you remember about what you ate on July 21, 2010? I couldn't tell you anything about it, honestly. And the way the questionnaire is worded will strongly influence how a meal gets classified.

That said, its still an interesting study. And as someone who is preparing to go into the healthcare industry and who is married to a nurse, its of personal interest to me.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:34 PM

It does leave a lot to be desired; but, one way of looking at it is that it's a snapshot every two years (i.e. I don't think they ask you what you ate over the last two years, but what you eat now). With that many people involved (more than 120,000) you can't be super-precise. I'm in health sciences, too, Epi in fact, and it bothers me that I can't always reconcile the two (my Paleo beliefs and Nutritional Epi). I do think the study designs aren't great either. I don't know...it's frustrating but at least the science is bearing out our beliefs on sugar, trans fats, and processed foods.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 01:23 PM

I think part of why you can't always reconcile the two is that paleo isnt right 100% of the time. Its the best we've got right now, but I think the paleo community gets a little too alarmist over some things. Eating whole grains isn't going to kill most people out there. Drinking a soda won't set you back 2 months and give you a gut. Non GF beef isn't horrible. I could be wrong, but thats what I've come up with after some self observation and common sense.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 01:24 PM

Its good to know that the study doesn't get super precise though. Would the snapshot be likely to ask participants to classify their own meals? Or would it ask what they ate and then the researchers classify the results after the data is collected?

2
8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 21, 2011
at 02:59 PM

This study does not at all show what contributes to weight gain. If they'd look, they would probably find that more fat people wear size 24 clothing. But they would never say that wearing size 24 contributes to fat gain. Same with food. Harvard should know better. The truly poor nutrition research they have cranked out over the years detracts from their reputation.

2
6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 21, 2011
at 08:30 AM

Maybe the whole grains caused weight loss because the participants were slowly wasting away from malabsorbtion and possibly undiagnosed celiac sprue? Weight loss doesn't equal health, I wish they'd stop using that as their main marker.

As for the weight gain with grain fed red meat I'm thinking antibiotics and an unfavorable omega 6 to 3 ratio in the meat could certainly do it through killing good gut bacteria and causing inflammation in people. The other thing that comes to mind is barbecue sauce, and/or ketchup (like in meatloaf). Adding 1/3 cup of smokey flavored HFCS to any meal is probably going to add up in the long run.

As far as what butter generally goes on in the SAD, I'm guessing they didn't take toast and jam into the equation.

I've heard many critical reports about the Nurses Health Study being cherry picked for data to support whatever hypothesis is popular at the moment, so I tend to take any panicked updates about what's good and bad for us from it with a grain of salt.

As far as waiting to buy grassfed beef until it is affordable, I've found grassfed liver and ground beef to be cheaper when I order it directly from a rancher than the feedlot stuff is at the store, so I don't think that is a valid justification for not eating grass fed.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 22, 2011
at 12:37 AM

I didn't think you were suggesting that we base our choices on what they were presenting, I was just trying to poke holes in their "controls" for the study and try to figure out what might be unregulated variables. I think you are definitely on to something with "healthier" diet choices corresponding with other healthy lifestyle choices.

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 08:49 AM

I'm not suggesting that we live our lives by the results of studies, but I do think it's interesting that the evidence is increasingly listing towards Paleo-ness, at least more so now than in the past. But what is somewhat perplexing is that is seems to be a mixed bag, where they're sometimes on the mark and sometimes not. Also, they would have adjusted for the bread going with the butter but, you're right, it doesn't look like they adjusted for jam or BBQ sauce or the like...

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 21, 2011
at 11:55 PM

I didn't think you were suggesting that we base our choices on what they were presenting, I was just trying to poke holes in their "controls" for the study and try to figure out what might be unregulated variables. I think you definitely on to something with "healthier" diet choices corresponding with other healthy lifestyle choices.

1
100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on July 21, 2011
at 02:17 PM

I think the bias is more subtle than just recall. Think about what kind of person, particularly during that time, was eating french fries and red meat, sweets and desserts, and what kind of person was eating fruits and vegetables, nuts and yogurt. Do you think one group might have been more health-conscious? If so, what other lifestyle choices might they have been making? Were the latter group exercising more, or actively trying to lose weight by caloric restriction? Were the former group more motivated by following their desires than health concerns? In a study like this, there is just too much self-selection that carries with it a host of factors. Epidemiology is a nightmare of multidimensionality.

1
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:05 PM

Red meat in this study was grain fed and the butter non pasture so this does not surprise me at all.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:23 PM

I lost my weight on almost exclusively on organic grainfed. The thing about grainfedis more about what it's missing but there's roundabout ways to get it in your diet. (pastured butter with a side of fish oil anyone?)

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:12 PM

That may be true but I doubt these items being pasture fed would have too much of a difference on weight gain

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:11 PM

Losing weight is one aspect. Being healthy as one ages is quite another

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

amen, tom. i should have also mentioned my parents are losing weight and improving their health on cafo beef. no it's not optimal but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:29 PM

I lost all of my weight on cheap supermarket meats. Nothing organic or GF about it. GF and organic are great, but if its not in your budget normal meats are still better than SAD

A846ed028a91515ea814dd0c713718f4

(363)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:13 PM

For the majority of the participants in the study, you're probably right (in that the study didn't ask them where these things came from). So does that mean that if you're poor, and can't afford grass-fed beef, you should refrain from eating red meat? Is the supermarket variety really that bad for you? I love a steak, but they're already expensive, and I'm just a student so I don't have loads to spend...

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on July 22, 2011
at 01:23 AM

I don't mean to be nit picky here, but how is it mathematically possible for the omega 6 to be the same, but the omega 3 to be increased? I would think the 6 would have to decrease per unit as the 3 increased.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:24 PM

quilt, from what i've read from different sources is this. you want to do 2 things, keep your ratio between 1:1 and 3:1 and keep total pufa's under 4% of your caloric intake. i do both by either eating 8-12 oz of salmon 3 times a week or when it's too expensive, supplementing a couple capsules of fish oil. btw, the amount of omega 6 in grainfed beef is the same as in grassfed beef, it just doesn't have enough omega 3 to bring it in balance. hence why i recommend oily fish or fish oil in addition to if eating conventional.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 21, 2011
at 12:12 PM

That's may be true but I doubt these items being pasture fed would have too much of a difference on weight gain.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:10 PM

Anyone who eats grain fed beef should get an omega six three ratio. If it above ten to one you have your answer. If it is high you need to stop it immediately. Omega six is bad no matter how you get it. It's something a patient needs to know and then decide what to do with regardless of money. Being I'll costs more in the long run and that is something that the patients has to decide

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 22, 2011
at 10:08 AM

how you cook the salmon determines your 6/3 ratio. How you cook you meat does the same. This is how I micromanage my 6/3 ratio. Steaming salmon produces several times as much oxidized cholesterol as frying it. Seems counter intuitive until you read the data. The longer cooking time allows the polyunsaturated fatty acids to break down, producing toxic by products and free radicals that oxidize the cholesterol and other components of the fish. The oxidized cholesterol content of steamed salmon was much higher than that of beef cooked at a high temperature. Cooking matters.

0
36b7a2776d028dc8d5743e2e56ece34d

on July 21, 2011
at 10:55 AM

They're findings are based on correlations in a epidemiological study, basically that means that these findings mean jack squat for the most part. Until they do clinical trials the conclusions don't hold a lot of bearing.

Potato products for example are correlated with one of the highest weight gains but it probably has very little to do with the potatoes and more to do with the polyunsaturated fats that the potatoes are fried in, french fries/chips are a lot easier to eat then mashed potatoes. Likewise with meat and butter, SAD people don't eat these plain they eat them in extravagant recipes with other toxic foods that enable them to vastly overeat.

Whole grains are harder to digest and way harder to overeat on.

Answer Question


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