Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beef in moderation is not correlated with disease. Nice scare tactic though.
I believe it's correlated with wealth, which is correlated with disease. But wealthy people (meaning most people in first-world countries) eat more of everything, not just meat. They have the option of eating at all hours and never burning anything off. It's a lifestyle issue, not the fault of specific foods.
In the US, and other developed countries, the wealthiest (top 10% or so) have the best health and the least weight problems. But they less likely to eat a lot of meat, refined carbohydrates, etc...
Regardless, there are numerous studies linking red meat and processed meats to health problems. Not only in excess, but in "moderation" as well. For whatever reason, the body seems to deal with red meat differently than white meat and fish.
I believe it's correlated with wealth, which is correlated with disease. But wealthy people (meaning most people in first-world countries) eat more of everything, not just meat. They have the option of eating at all hours and never burning anything off. It's a lifestyle issue, not the fault of specific foods.
Really? This is your argument? Wealthy people get more diseases, and wealthy people eat a lot of meat, therefore the meat is causing the disease? Red meat in moderation is fine to eat. But in moderation.
Actually if you go to the wealthier areas you will find more fit and healthy people than you will in the poorer areas. So how does that fit in with your assumptions?
Really? This is your argument? Wealthy people get more diseases, and wealthy people eat a lot of meat, therefore the meat is causing the disease? Red meat in moderation is fine to eat. But in moderation.
Actually if you go to the wealthier areas you will find more fit and healthy people than you will in the poorer areas. So how does that fit in with your assumptions?
I think TribeCavs argument is more about people in developed nations tend to get diseases of affluence (Cancer, heart disease, ect) and it is because of overeating in general - not due to one single food item such as red meat.
I think TribeCavs argument is more about people in developed nations tend to get diseases of affluence (Cancer, heart disease, ect) and it is because of overeating in general - not due to one single food item such as red meat.
I agree with that. We are pigs here in this country. Super size everything. All you can eat buffets, the never ending pasta bowl, seconds, thirds, and fourths. We eat way, way too much food. And a lot of it is just pure crap. Combine that with lack of movement and you have a recipe for health disasters.
On a side note, when I was at the grocery store today I saw an obese little girl, easily 40 - 50 lbs overweight. She was probably 6 or 7. She was with her obese father and her not quite yet obese little brother. She was eating out of a super sized bag of M&M's. It saddened me and angered me.
"Every extra daily serving of unprocessed red meat (steak, hamburger, pork, etc.) increased the risk of dying prematurely by 13%. Processed red meat (hot dogs, sausage, bacon, and the like) upped the risk by 20%. The results were published in the Archives of Internal Medicine."
But I get it, you want to believe that the "food groups" defined by corporate America via the USDA represent good wholesome foods rather than the self-interest of the businesses involved. But that isn't what the research says.....
Actually, the article also sites another Japanese study that found no correlation between moderate consumption of unprocessed meats and longevity; as well as another study from the Harvard Med School that only found a correlation between PROCESSED meats and heart disease and diabetes. So it is still not definitive.
I see nothing objectionable in the Harvard plate and do think it is more beneficial and clearly defined than the USDA's my plate.
I personally think MODERATE red meat consumption (no more than one small serving per day or every couple of days) is fine. I think the mistake many paleo diet types make is assuming that we can eat as much red meat / sat fat as we want "because or ancestors did it." They don't realize that even our grandparents of a few generations ago ate less red meat. Through the ages red meat was relatively scarce because you either had to A) hunt for it, or B) kill one of your valuable livestock. Our ancestors did not simply eat red meat whenever they wanted and to their hearts content!
Actually, the article also sites another Japanese study that found no correlation between moderate consumption of unprocessed meats and longevity; as well as another study from the Harvard Med School that only found a correlation between PROCESSED meats and heart disease and diabetes. So it is still not definitive.
The Japanese don't eat much red meat (or much meat in general), so not finding a similar correlation there isn't surprising. As for this not being definitive, as it says in the article this was the largest and longest study on red meat consumption as a result it should carry significant weight.
Regardless, the point is that there is a growing body of evidence that links red meat consumption, even in moderation, to disease. So though its not "definitive", the current science doesn't point to red meat being "okay in moderation" either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneb
I personally think MODERATE red meat consumption (no more than one small serving per day or every couple of days) is fine.
Alright, but this is in conflict with the current research. But, this is another problem, people interpret "moderation" in different ways. In what sense is eating red meat every day "in moderation"? "Moderation" isn't a standard unit of measure, its mostly just an excuse to eat what you want....regardless of the health consequences.
Now, I understand that eating red meat is a cultural norm in the US and that's mostly why people don't give it up, but given the research and given that its entirely unessential to your health....why bother? Eat fish, eat chicken....or don't eat meat at all.
"All right, but this is in conflict with the current research."
Not really. As many articles you can find against moderate red meat consumption you will find equal amount saying there is no correlation and that moderate consumption of red meat actually offers lots of nutrients.
We can all find articles on diets that agree with our own eating preferences. Hell, there are thousands of conflicting reports. The bottom line is that NO ONE has come up with THE magic diet that has it all for everyone.
The best we can all do is watch portions and eat as fresh as possible. Avoid packaged, sugary and fast foods. Eat a well balanced diet that represents all the food groups. Its pretty fricking simple.
Not really. As many articles you can find against moderate red meat consumption you will find equal amount saying there is no correlation and that moderate consumption of red meat actually offers lots of nutrients.
Really? Have you confirmed this? Can you find me one large term study the same size as the Harvard study that shows no correlation?
This is your excuse for any research that conflicts with what you wish to put in your month.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckyd609
The best we can all do is watch portions and eat as fresh as possible. Avoid packaged, sugary and fast foods. Eat a well balanced diet that represents all the food groups. Its pretty fricking simple.
I'll let you do the watch portions thing and such.....I have no need for that. Yes, its all simple if you ignore all the science, all the details....and just eat what the American agricultural industry, via the USDA, tells you want you should eat.
I would never adjust my diet around every new study, but I will adjust my diet when there is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates a link between negative health outcomes and a particular food. The research surrounding red meat isn't just some small short-term studies in a conflicting sea of other studies, no, there is a collection of large long term studies that are all starting to show the same thing: the consumption of red meat has negative health outcomes. Exactly when is it prudent to stop consuming a food due to a growing body of evidence? I suppose for some, they'll just wait until the government bans it, others will be more cautious....
Here's an idea - how about we just all eat the way we want to....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
