patrick.net

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."

In addition to the OP WHO report:

"Cooking meats at high temperatures, as in barbecuing or pan-frying, may increase the risk for kidney cancer, a new study suggests.

The World Health Organization warned last month that processed meats -- including bacon, hot dogs and sausages -- can cause colon cancer. Red meats were also associated with higher risk."

Doesn't matter what they say about nutrition and it's so called correlates.

Superstition substitutes for facts (which are still poorly understood i.e. the so called science is very, very far from complete), and somebody will periodically attempt to alter the prevailing superstitions to churn and benefit from the markets.

Data farming without examining the validity of basic research is becoming the great bugaboo of modern claim-ology. Basic research is extraordinarily difficult, lengthy, laborious, and expensive while data farming is whimsical and cheap, like taking polls: you can make it say just about anything you want.

Fruitinarianism causes cancer, the gout, and a host of other things. Look at Steve Jobs, who ate a stringent diet of veggies and fruit with meditation, lived a shorter life than Big Al who visits the Sizzler twice a week and guzzles down beer, pretzels, and hot dogs.

There's also a correlation between extremism and, my hypothesis, assholic behavior linked to limited meat intake.

Edit: make that a Vegan diet. Fucking asshole weirdo who never invented anything.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/body-odd/strange-eating-habits-steve-jobs-f119434

Funniest bit: Jobs swore his fruitinarian diet eliminated BO, much to the contrary experience of those who worked with him closely.

MMR says

curious2 says

don't eat CAFO or processed meat

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

Another report today:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) technical report says the practice of adding antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs to the feed of healthy livestock, commonly done to promote growth and prevent disease among animals in crowded conditions, often leaves the drugs ineffective when they're needed to treat infections in people, especially the youngest among us."

In the USA, most antibiotic consumption is in animal agriculture, especially CAFO and dairy. I've seen estimates as high as 80%. The commercial media blame ignorant humans who insist on taking antibiotics for a rhinovirus or influenza virus, but that is a drop in the bucket and there are even doctors who prescribe for that purpose (in order to prevent bacterial coinfection) so the Rx mandate does not stop that practice. The much larger antibiotic problems are both heavily subsidized by government: (a) the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture and (b) the misuse of antibiotics in hospitals.

thunderlips11 says

Edit: make that a Vegan diet. Fucking asshole weirdo who never invented anything

Nerd Jesus "changed the world"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/E3s-qZsjK8I

"Prostate cancer survivors who eat a typical American diet loaded with red meat, cheese and white bread are far more likely to see their cancer come back and kill them, and they're more likely to die sooner of any disease than patients who eat a healthier diet...."

The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), which studies the links between food and cancer, says it's clear the Health and Human Services Department and U.S. Department of Agriculture came under pressure to downplay any risks of eating meat.
***
Dr. Walter Willett, who heads the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, agreed. "Unfortunately, the USDA has censored the recommendation of the Scientific Advisory Committee to consume less red meat," Willett said.
***
Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell says the report actually stands up to some very strong lobbying groups, especially in its recommendations to cut sugar, salt and saturated fat. These are all found in processed food or soft drinks, and some very powerful interest groups fought back hard on recommendations to limit those.
***
One high-profile recommendation that was dropped from consideration in the year-long process of drawing up the report was that people be advised to eat a "sustainable" diet that would limit bad impacts on the environment. That would include eating less meat, since producing meat uses far more water than producing crops that people eat directly.

MMR says

Nerd Jesus "changed the world"

He pretty much nailed Steve Jobs, except for one thing. Steve Jobs never had any actual good ideas either. He just ordered other people to copy other people's work. The graphical user interface, stolen from Xerox Parc. The iPod, copied from the Diamond Rio. iPhone, copied from Palm Smart Phone and others.

Had Steve Jobs never existed, the only way the world would be different is the absent of annoying Apple Fanboys, although they may have clung to some other cult leader.