RE: Re: Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat

[Guest guest]

No observational study will ever be able to tweak out everything, nor

do i think they try to, but this info is inline with many other

studies including the huge 2007 AICR/WCRF report on cancer.

>>>1. grains, processed in particular

>>>>2. sugar

Maybe, but many who eat higher meat diets actually avoid grains and

sugars (carbs) as they follow low carb diets.

However, we can't criticize one observational study and the

association it makes, like the one in this study as being " poor " and

them make another one and want to give it more weight, without giving

some sort of better evidence for the one we give.

While I may tend to agree with you about the impact of the things you

mentioned, to me its not either or, but both and all. They are all

harmful.

>>>3. trans-fatty acids as present in manufactured " food products "

Yes, but this is a separate issue.

While wild game may have some advantages over farm raised animals,

the issues of saturated fat, cholesterol, lack of fiber, HCAA, remain.

Thanks

Jeff

[Guest guest]

This is the same study we recently discussed which gave this result:

“In place of red meat, nonvegetarians might consider poultry and fish. In the study, the largest consumers of “white” meat from poultry and fish had a slight survival advantage. Likewise, those who ate the most fruits and vegetables also tended to live longer.”

Isn’t that interesting? Especially for those of us, like me, who eat fish and poultry.

If you love hamburgers and hot dogs: Trader Joe’s sells uncured/unprocessed turkey hot dogs, non-meat burgers, and whole wheat hot dog and hamburger buns. Ingredients in the turkey dogs are simply turkey and spices and no nitrates.

From: Novick <jnovickrd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:58:17 -0400

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat

No observational study will ever be able to tweak out everything, nor

do i think they try to, but this info is inline with many other

studies including the huge 2007 AICR/WCRF report on cancer.

>>>1. grains, processed in particular

>>>>2. sugar

Maybe, but many who eat higher meat diets actually avoid grains and

sugars (carbs) as they follow low carb diets.

However, we can't criticize one observational study and the

association it makes, like the one in this study as being " poor " and

them make another one and want to give it more weight, without giving

some sort of better evidence for the one we give.

While I may tend to agree with you about the impact of the things you

mentioned, to me its not either or, but both and all. They are all

harmful.

>>>3. trans-fatty acids as present in manufactured " food products "

Yes, but this is a separate issue.

While wild game may have some advantages over farm raised animals,

the issues of saturated fat, cholesterol, lack of fiber, HCAA, remain.

Thanks

Jeff

[Guest guest]

In any such population study the association between meat and death is what it is. We can rationalize or finagle explanations to fit our world view, but that doesn't change the data point.I would go for the more obvious speculation about causation. High meat consumption means high fat consumption and elevated exposure to carcinogens from meat that is burned while cooking. These increase the risk for heart disease and cancer, the listed causes of increased study deaths. If they died from diabetes complications I'd then be more receptive to blaming the buns over the burgers, but they didn't mention sugar related disease vectors. (note: there is an association with high energy intake and cancer so sugar could modulate cancer risk, but that excess sugar surely gets converted to fat in our bodies so even that vector is arguably associated with more fat, or perhaps explained more simply by energy balance.As with anything it's the portion as much as the poison, so moderation, moderation, moderation. I also consider it prudent to evaluate how we cook foods and be aware of chemical reactions associated with elevated cooking temperature. The crock pot is our friend. I like red meat but not  for 3 meals a day, like some. It's interesting (to me) that they renamed the recent flu outbreak to help pork sales (and tourism).  JRPS: We don't need any new incentive to avoid simple carbohydrates in excess and transfats in any amount (IMO), On May 5, 2009, at 12:40 PM, kaitainen wrote:The article states, "A question that arises from observational studies like this one is whether meat is in fact a hazard or whether other factors associated with meat-eating are the real culprits in raising death rates."Based on all of the medical literature I've read, both widely publicized and not, I'd be willing to wager that red meat and processed meat consumption is directly correlated to the consumption of:1. grains, processed in particular2. sugar3. trans-fatty acids as present in manufactured "food products"...and the risk comes from those 3 factors, not from the meat per se.I have no doubt that farmed meat is far worse for you than free-range hormone and antibiotic free stuff, HOWEVER, I think it still might be less bad for you than the 3 items I list above.YMMV.in Albuquerque

[Guest guest]

It is great to qeustion the funding sources, however not all studies are

corrupt. Nor does such comments apply to the AICR/WCRF report I referneced which

was compiled by an independent panel

But again, you have to come up with better data with better sources and

references than the ones you are criticizing as being faulty if you want your

oosition to be respected and have greater value.

Conspiracy theories only go so far.

You may also want to search the list archives for the very long & thorough

discussions on these issues.

Jeff.

[ ] Re: Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat

> >>>1. grains, processed in particular

> >>>>2. sugar

>

> Maybe, but many who eat higher meat diets actually avoid grains and

> sugars (carbs) as they follow low carb diets.

This study seemed to look at a " high meat " diet as one of normal western

cultures, not the extreme low-carbers or Paleo types.

> >>>3. trans-fatty acids as present in manufactured " food products "

>

> Yes, but this is a separate issue.

>

> While wild game may have some advantages over farm raised animals,

> the issues of saturated fat, cholesterol, lack of fiber, HCAA, remain.

I am hoping to continue to help the exposure of the facts about saturated fat

and cholesterol in particular. To whit:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/?page_id=4

http://www.musclehack.com/the-saturated-fat-cholesterol-myth-destroyed/

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/foodlaw/2008/03/saturated-fat-c.html

http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/40/Saturated-Fats-Cholesterol-and-Hea\

rt-Disease

I have learned too much about the funding sources of the AMA, USDA, FDA, AHA,

etc, etc to trust much of what they say about what is proper to eat.

The movie Fat Head (semi-referenced in my first link above) is a somewhat

amateurish film production but full of great info and worth watching for that

reason alone. It was made as a counterpoint to Super Size Me, and goes head on

against many dietary myths.

Thanks for reading.

, in the Duke City