patrick.net

curious2 says

meat causes cancer

Everything causes cancer.
Just try and eat healthy foods and natural foods.
Avoid processed foods and foods with preservative.
No matter what, you will die anyway.

People in the Med eat fish and shellfish like no tomorrow.

Coffee used to cause cancer.

As for pompous Vegetarians, they defended eating vegetable oil, the worst possible thing you can put in your mouth, as healthy. Now we know it's worse than butter.

Ironman says

curious2 says

meat causes cancer

As long as it doesn't cause Global Warming, we're safe!

Flatulence from cows releases methane gas. Sorry.

Most of these studies are not worth the paper they are printed on and they also misrepresent the meditarrenean diet, which contains quite a bit of meat (fish and red meat) and dairy. If you're looking for one sure thing to minimize your chances of chronic diseases such as heart disease or cancer, then that would be to eliminate sugar and reduce carbs (only eat complex carbs) and replace the cut carbs with a high-fat and moderate-protein diet. That and a moderate to huge amount of exercise. That being said, if you don't have access to or funds for high quality meat/dairy or don't have the burn rate for those calories a vegetarian (not vegan) diet - still low on carbs, esp. simple ones - can make sense as it is cheaper.

Now we know it's worse than butter.

What's the matter with butter?

Now lets all act surprised that another government institution is doling out bad nutrition information. Meat causes cancer LOL

It's processed meats, right? Folks have known for decades that nitrites in processed meat causes cancer. Lunch meat is unrecognizable processed sludge, the scraps off the cutting room floor.

Human DNA found in hot dogs - what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11956947/human-DNA-found-in-hot-dogs-vegetarian-sausages-contain-meat.html

Processed meats have been classified as a group 1 cancer causing agent (definitely causes cancer). Red meats were classified as probably carcinogenic (group 2a). Here's a list of other group 1 cancer causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens. There has been lots of science for many years that has shown that processed meats cause cancer. The WHO classifying it as such is after vetting lots of info.

Most people including me think that butter is bad for you. There are other things that are much worse, like trans fats (veg oils modified to act more like saturated fats). So, butter could be good for you if you were replacing trans fats or other crap.

Strategist says

Flatulence from cows releases methane gas. Sorry.

All the more reason to eat them. Just doing my part to help stop global warming, er climate whatever - pass the steak sauce.

The mediterranean diet is full of "processed" meats, such as pork/beef salami - mmmmmmm. Full of dairy as well, lotsa cheese, some cereal with coffee and milk. Butter is very good for you. Red meat is important for your heart function. This is mostly hokum.

The mediterranean diet that has been shown to be healthy (mostly the traditional diet of Mediterranean people many years ago) is mostly whole grains, legumes, veggies, a little fish and olive oil, and hardly any other meats. It is also low fat by today's standards. But by all means, go ahead and eat like a Greek or Italian in 2015. It will no doubt do wonders for you.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/greece-leads-the-world-in-overweight-and-obese-kids-1718/

Strategist says

Flatulence from cows releases methane gas. Sorry.

So does flatulence from people. Are you going to ban beans and Fiber One oats and chocolate bars now?

YesYNot says

The mediterranean diet that has been shown to be healthy (mostly the traditional diet of Mediterranean people many years ago) is mostly whole grains, legumes, veggies, a little fish and olive oil, and hardly any other meats. It is also low fat by today's standards. But by all means, go ahead and eat like a Greek or Italian in 2015. It will no doubt do wonders for you.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/greece-leads-the-world-in-overweight-and-obese-kids-1718/

The likely reason for the mediterrenean success story is the high fat content from fresh oils, mainly olive, and protecting antioxidants such as resveratrol. Pasta is actually mainly an appetizer, meat is often the main dish, dessert is cheese and salumi. The increase in obesity is simply from the increase in carbs, esp. refined sugar. The inuit eat mainly meat and fish and have the lowest cancer rates. In fact hunter-gatherer societies have lower cancer rates in general than grain-fed societies. This is hokum. Cutting sugar and then carbs is your best bet to prevent modern malaise.

So called Med Diet was based on studies right in the aftermath of WW2, when food was expensive and there were a lot of problems. What Italians eat today is what they eat when their country hasn't been overrun by land battles and bombed to smithereens.

Greeks, Italians and Spaniards do NOT eat two bowls of pasta daily. They actually seldom eat pasta, except for Sicilians, who have some of the highest rates of heart disease in the world. They eat Sausages, Anchovies, Pepperoni, Salami, Mutton, Olives, Cheese, Fish, Muscles, etc. with pasta and bread very seldom. Outside of Sicily, eating a meal based on pasta is considered poor man's food, like eating Mac n' Cheese from a box in the USA. Seldom in Italy will anybody eat a bowl of spaghetti, unless it's a side dish for a plate of veal or mutton.

The NYT did an article on people from Ikaria, a Greek Island, who happened to be my neighbors growing up and used to watch me when I was a little kid after school. They ate "anti-pastas", olives, lots of olive oil, they used to roast mutton in the backyard, all kinds of weird cheeses, and very little rice or pasta. And that's exactly what I ate for dinner every night.

The Japanese and the French also eat high salt foods. The French use Cream-based sauces like no tomorrow. The Japanese pickle everything in salt, then dip it in salty soy sauce.

zzyzzx says

Strategist says

Flatulence from cows releases methane gas. Sorry.

So does flatulence from people. Are you going to ban beans and Fiber One oats and chocolate bars now?

I would ban them at airports so airline passengers can have a pleasant flight.

Any risky activities should be covered by private insurance at $5000/month. If the activity leads to health problems,insurance companies shouldn't have to pay one cent.
Assholes that don't like it,pay cash.

They can't pay cash. They're FAILURES!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/27/world-health-organisation-bacon-bad-asbestos-tobacco-plutonium/

And bacon is as bad as Plutonium. Time to build a mass bacon or distruction and bacon the middle east.

It's just good old Muslim Liberal science.

Woot cool band name alert.

Tactical Bacon.

If you didn't read the study, their claim is that red meat may increase risk of colol cancer by 18%

So the general public is already at risk of developing colon cancer, to the tune of 5%

The WHO now claims that consuming red meat increases risk by 18%. So it's basically a rounding error, where red meat consumption puts you at a 5.8% risk of developing cancer, versus avoiding red meat altogether lowers your chance of developing cancer down to 5%

LOL

Baconian Jihad

thunderlips11 says

So called Med Diet was based on studies right in the aftermath of WW2, when food was expensive and there were a lot of problems. What Italians eat today is what they eat when their country hasn't been overrun by land battles and bombed to smithereens.

And that's why their mortality rate dropped during WWII, like many other countries in Europe.mell says

The likely reason for the mediterrenean success story is the high fat content from fresh oils, mainly olive, and protecting antioxidants such as resveratrol. Pasta is actually mainly an appetizer, meat is often the main dish, dessert is cheese and salumi. The increase in obesity is simply from the increase in carbs, esp. refined sugar.

There's a lot of variation in diets of Mediterranean countries. But on the whole this quote "However, an increase in the supply of meats and dairy products and a decrease in the supply of cereals and wine were observed in European Mediterranean countries from 1961 until 2001." comes from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16480534.

We have exported the extravagance of meat and fatty sugary foods to other countries. It is synonymous with wealth and power, so everyone wants to partake. Sugar consumption around the globe is going up, but so is meat and dairy. Since 1960, global population has doubled, but animal product production has quadrupled. People around the globe are eating much more meat and dairy now. In China, meat consumption per capita has increased 6-fold in the last 40 years (http://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-animal-feed.html). That is why they are experiencing such an increase in diabetes. Soft drinks might not be helping, but the elephant in the room is pork.

French delicacies are filled with dairy, but the French don't eat them every day. The last time we were there, my wife was making small talk and asked a local how she was so thin eating croissants every day. The French woman said, 'We don't eat croissants every day. If we did, we would be fat.' Although they exhibit higher self control than Americans, the French are getting fat as well.

We have exported the extravagance of meat and fatty sugary foods to other countries. It is synonymous with wealth and power, so everyone wants to partake. Sugar consumption around the globe is going up, but so is meat and dairy. Since 1960, global population has doubled, but animal product production has quadrupled. People around the globe are eating much more meat and dairy now. In China, meat consumption per capita has increased 6-fold in the last 40 years (http://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat-and-animal-feed.html). That is why they are experiencing such an increase in diabetes. Soft drinks might not be helping, but the elephant in the room is pork.

------------

Why are you lumping together meat and dairy? And then meat and sugary, fatty foods?

There is nothing wrong with animal protein, nor animal fat. Humans have survived and evolved to this point in time, solely because of animal protein and fat. It's the As-Old-As-Time diet.

Pretty much all the modern crap that has entered the fold in the past half century, with the advent of the modern grocery stores, is what is causing the bulk of sickness/disease, and healthcare wasteful spending.

Your anecdote of the French woman does bring up a good point. "We" eat too much in general. If you're properly fueling your body, you can survive and thrive on what most would consider a starvation diet. Animal protein and animal fat are very nutritious, in fact, one could live a long and healthy life by only consuming smallish amounts of animal protein and fat.

The problem with the "Meat equals death" is that many of the longest lived groups in the world are Pastoralists and Herders (or Heavy Fish Eaters, like the Japs, Norwegians and Greeks), whereas among the shortest lived are Indians and others who subsist primarily on grain and vegetables. The China Study tried to explain away long lived Mongol groups by saying they ate grains periodically - yeah, around harvest time once a year when they swapped excess animals to farmers for some bread and beer. You can't carry a grain silo on horseback. Even their alcohol is based on fermented milk, not grains!

Grain wasn't even domesticated before about 10,000 years ago. What did humans eat for the other 990,000 years? Not barley, it didn't exist (was emmer, not cultivated, available for only a few days a year, ditto with corn/teosinte and wheat). Nor potatoes (no yams or potatoes grown until about 12,000 years ago).

Evidence: Nobody is allergic to animal flesh. It simply doesn't exist (except as one symptom of a bite from a tick that lives only in the American Southwest). Whereas the numbers of gluten intolerant, those allergic to chocolate, peanuts, etc. is in the hundreds of millions.

It's the Vegetable Oil, too much rice, too much bread! India has the highest percentage of vegetarians in the world. The Fish eating Japanese and the Pork scarfing Chinese have far lower rates of heart disease, despite the fact they are far more likely to smoke.

http://desinutritionauthority.com/2015/06/why-young-slim-vegetarian-non-smoking-indians-are-struggling-with-cardiac-blockages-heart-attacks-and-diabetes/

Mell, I agreed with much of what you wrote, but with some exceptions:

mell says

hunter-gatherer societies have lower cancer rates....

The primary risk factor for cancer is age; most cancers are diagnosed after 65. Hunter-gatherer societies have shorter life expectancies, so it would be logical to expect fewer cancers: most of them die sooner from something else, so they don't live long enough to get cancer.

mell says

Red meat

causes heart disease, and is definitely not necessary for heart function, though I would be curious if you can cite something calling it important in a helpful way. (If somebody is trapped in a remote area with nothing else available to prevent starvation, then red meat would be important to heart function, but otherwise no, and it's a very inefficient use of water and arable land.)

thunderlips11 says

Pastoralists and Herders

don't eat CAFO or processed meat. Read Molly Ivins about American beef literally smeared in its own crap, for which they charge by the pound. Most of the stuff on supermarket shelves in the "meat" aisle bears little resemblance to evolutionary food. Meat is an area where the "organic" label can make a huge difference; otherwise you're literally eating crap and paying for the privilege.

errc says

Why are you lumping together meat and dairy? And then meat and sugary, fatty foods?

There is nothing wrong with animal protein, nor animal fat. Humans have survived and evolved to this point in time, solely because of animal protein and fat. It's the As-Old-As-Time diet.

I don't consider meat and dairy to be the same. But if we look at how dietary patterns have changed, those have gone up together, and that is what I was talking about. People try to blame a decrease in health solely on sugar consumption when it's animal food consumption that has been increasing dramatically around the world and in Mediterranean countries.

In the US, sugar consumption has gone up, which I believe is mostly due to a huge increase in soda consumption, as well as processed foods, which are loaded with it. But in addition to that eating out has gone up dramatically, and people usually eat shit tons of calories when they eat at restaurants. With little exception, if it comes in a box or in a restaurant, it was designed to be as tasty as possible with absolutely zero regard to your health.

When you look at human history a couple of things are apparent. Every large successful population of humans has always had a starch-based diet. There are virtually no people who are protein deficient who are not also starving. That includes people eating loads of empty calorie crap like sugar and oil. Most long lived populations eat a mostly vegetable based diet (read the blue zones). The diets that have been successful in reversing diabetes and heart disease in clinical settings have all been veg based. Within the 7th day adventists studies, the only dietary group with a normal bmi is the vegan group. The lower bmi went along with a much lower incidence of diabetes. The vegans did not exercise more, either. The EPIC study found the same thing - that increased meat consumption led to higher weight gains, even after controlling for calories.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351712

You've got too much bad data in that post, for me to addressing via mobile.

One point id like to touch on, is that you are misinformed wrt diabetes. Insulin resistance is a result of excess carbohydrate consumption (specifically sugar). The best 'diet' to combat insulin resistance is a ketogenic diet. Ketosis can be reached by cutting out virtually all carbohydrates from ones diet, and in turn, ramping up Fat and protein consumption. This isn't new, humans have understood the science here for a century

curious2 says

Mell, I agreed with much of what you wrote, but with some exceptions:

mell says

hunter-gatherer societies have lower cancer rates....

The primary risk factor for cancer is age; most cancers are diagnosed after 65. Hunter-gatherer societies have shorter life expectancies, so it would be logical to expect fewer cancers: most of them die sooner from something else, so they don't live long enough to get cancer.

True, but even age-adjusted, take for example the Inuit, the occurrence of cancer is lower (possibly also environmental factors at play which would diminish the argument of the significance of diet). Processed red meat has been mainly linked to colon cancer (prob. due to nitrites and promotion of inflammation) but there are many factors at play, unprocessed meat showed no significant evidence.

curious2 says

causes heart disease, and is definitely not necessary for heart function, though I would be curious if you can cite something calling it important in a helpful way. (If somebody is trapped in a remote area with nothing else available to prevent starvation, then red meat would be important to heart function, but otherwise no, and it's a very inefficient use of water and arable land.)

It's not the L-carnitine itself, but how it is processed and transmuted by gut bacteria, which varies from person to person, which can aid sclerosis. However if you take the ingredients itself, from B and D Vitamins to fatty acids, the ingredients themselves promote heart health (even carnitine does and there are people that are carnitine deficient). Likely many don't need as much meat as they eat, but that depends on your caloric intake and level of exercise.

I agree that it is inefficient, but so is growing almonds in CA. In any case I am not advocating eating tons of meat, but a little red/white meat (half a portion) even every day is not bad for you if you're active.

http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-it-does-a-body-good/

Kresser is arguably on the other side (heavy paleo), but he often links to credible studies and also dissects some.

In any case like errc pointed out, the links from red meat to disease are much weaker than the link between sugar and almost any chronic illness. If you keep your glycogen stores depleted and let your body produce necessary energy via ketosis, then all the fat is optimally used (and fat stores reduced) and a moderate protein intake will keep your muscles strong. Also there is no link at at all between diabetes and fat or protein consumption, but there is a direct link between excess carbohydrates/sugar and diabetes, as well as between diabetes and obesity (which is again mostly caused by sugar converted to stored fat).

Lastly, view the video linked in this page and fast forward to 27 minutes if you don't want to listen to it all:

http://ketopia.com/why-we-all-dont-get-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering-cancer-center/

The researcher at sloan-kettering makes it very clear that - according to today's latest research - fat does not promote cancer at all, protein may/can promote some and sugar/carbs certainly does promote cancer (that's why a ketogenic diet is now often a part of the treatment). It's a very interesting talk, I suggest watching it all.

I can only speak for myself. I eat small portions (except a couple nights a week for dinner--I have an epicurean weakness). Not much sugar and very little carbs. Cook with butter and olive oil for low heat, or peanut oil when high smoke point is called for. I shop only the outside perimeter at the grocery store, or buy at the farmer's market when it makes sense. I'm still the same weight I was as in high school. I rarely eat red meat--but when I do, we have a world-class butcher that dry ages at quite a good price. We eat more seafood than anything, although that gets tricky with all the mercury, farm raising, and fish-fraud out there. And red kidney beans: great for soluble fiber, which is way more important than insoluble fiber. I eat all the salt I want. I don't care. And I have lower blood pressure than average for my age.

Philistine says

I eat all the salt I want. I don't care. And I have lower blood pressure than average for my age.

Likely, because salt leading to high blood pressure is another myth.

curious2 says

very inefficient use of water and arable land.

What would the difference in water and arable land consumption be in the instance of grass-fed beef vs CAFO beef?

curious2 says

don't eat CAFO or processed meat

What studies have been done on CAFO vs Grass-fed beef consumption?

errc says

Insulin resistance is a result of excess carbohydrate consumption (specifically sugar

That's the most common cause, but in older males, it can also be lower testosterone levels. In fact 1/3 of men with diabetes have hypogonatrophic hypogonadism

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/512077_4

Testosterone increases insulin sensitivity

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/39965

Low testosterone might affect insulin sensitivity

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/GeneralEndocrinology/30090

errc says

combat insulin resistance is a ketogenic diet

Protein is not as insulogenic as sugar or simple carbohydrates, but it is insulogenic. My highest fasting blood glucose levels were when I was consuming a 1g/lb of bodyweight.

curious2 says

don't eat CAFO or processed meat. Read Molly Ivins about American beef literally smeared in its own crap, for which they charge by the pound. Most of the stuff on supermarket shelves in the "meat" aisle bears little resemblance to evolutionary food. Meat is an area where the "organic" label can make a huge difference; otherwise you're literally eating crap and paying for the privilege.

Absolutely. The Chicken is barely any better. Anything frozen in the meat dept., you can forget about (if it isn't adulterated with Testosterone Busting soy, as many frozen burger patties are).

Fortunately I live in South America and they haven't gotten to corn fed yet here, much less sweeping up filth from the factory floor.

Carbohydrate consumption does not cause insulin resistance. If it did, a diet of rice, fruit, and sugar would not cure diabetes, but it does. Kempner did it for many years at his very successful Duke clinic. Here's a brief write-up: https://www.drmcdougall.com/2013/12/31/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/. There are plenty of people treating diabetes with a high carb (70-80% of calories from carbohydrate) diets. Here's one guy doing it today: http://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabetes/dp/1594868107.

I admit that the ketogenic diet has been shown to do more than the ADA diet in some studies lately, but the ADA diet is a very small change from the SAD, and people only half follow it. So, it is not surprising that it doesn't have much of an effect on diabetes.

People have known for years that ketogenic diets are effective against seizures. But people on those diets face these side effects. Sounds fun.

"Risks
Special diets for epilepsy are not considered healthy, and they can have side effects. Some of the side effects make it hard to continue the diet. Side effects include:

Digestive problems, such as diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and heartburn.
High cholesterol (some people may need to take medicine).
Kidney stones.
Low energy levels.
Slower growth rates in children.
Vitamin and mineral deficiencies which can be helped by taking supplements."

MMR says

What would the difference in water and arable land consumption be in the instance of grass-fed beef vs CAFO beef?

The CAFO system expands water and land consumption in at least two ways compared to grass-fed.
1) CAFO shifts consumption geographically, capturing subsidies from other jurisdictions. For example, in California, more than half of all water use goes to animal agriculture. That includes alfalfa shipped off to CAFO feedlots. (The beef industry seems to blame almonds, but beef consumes 4x more water per gram of protein than almonds do.) To the extent California subsidizes water development ($40 billion tunnel project pending) etc., it results in more consumption of land and water to promote the indirectly subsidized CAFO feedlots. When you subsidize something, you tend to get more of it.
2) Even aside from subsidies, CAFO extends the financial and environmental footprint of beef to areas that are not otherwise suitable to cattle ranching. In areas where cattle can feed on naturally occurring grasslands, water and land consumption might be more similar, but CAFO expands consumption to more areas than could otherwise be involved in beef production.

MMR says

What studies have been done on CAFO vs Grass-fed beef consumption?

Consumption studies have tended to focus on the headline risks and have found only modest differences, e.g. CAFO beef may be more likely contaminated with drug resistant bacteria while organic beef may be more likely contaminated with ordinary bacteria. Effects on heart disease and other major killers appear similar for both categories, but I suspect an additional difference involving prions, e.g. BSE and possibly Parkinson's. CAFO feed includes pulverized cattle remains, which is a known risk factor for BSE, and I suspect it may also prove a risk factor for other diseases.

Meanwhile, CAFO beef production has much worse health effects than grass-fed production, both for the people involved in production and probably their neighbors, especially downwind, as the wind carries the toxic chemicals and drug-resistant bacteria from CAFO dust to everywhere downwind.

@MMR, I can't imagine who Disliked your perfectly reasonable questions, which I would have answered sooner but computer problems knocked me offline for a while. I have now answered above.

Cancer causes Cancer, somebody ought to outlaw it.

curious2 says

wind carries the toxic chemicals and drug-resistant bacteria from CAFO dust to everywhere downwind.

Whenever I hear about spinach or some other vegetable with an E. Coli contamination, I always kind of assume that it is due to CAFO runoff.

curious2 says

I can't imagine who Disliked your perfectly reasonable questions, which I would have answered sooner but computer problems knocked me offline for a while. I have now answered above.

It's ok...I'm glad you were able to add to the discussion. I find that finding objective sources of information on this topic has been kind of challenging.

MMR says

E. Coli contamination...due to CAFO runoff.

I remember reading about that years ago. Subsidized corn feed causes cows' digestive systems to operate at a higher temperature than grass does, and that increases the risk the bacteria can pose. Also, cheap beef is more likely to be ground CAFO beef (including the low end version "ground chuck"); the ground products combine "meat from many different animals, increasing the risk of contamination."