Meat's back on the menu

Online now: No visible users
Post Reply
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Image

Quote:
A group of 14 researchers just set off a firestorm with a new series of studies that upends years of nutrition advice on meat. Their five systematic reviews, published Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest there’s no health reason to eat less red meat — not even the bacon and salami we’ve been told for years to cut back on.

Led by Dalhousie University epidemiologist Bradley Johnston, the authors, who hail from seven different countries, focused on the impact of red meat consumption on cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mortality, among other effects, as well as people’s values and preferences regarding red meat.

Based on these studies, their conclusions — summarized in a new Annals clinical guideline — challenge the guidelines from just about every major national and international health group. Just four years ago, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that people should cut back on processed meats if they wanted to avoid certain types of cancer. The American Heart Association and the US government’s dietary guidelines panel have also long suggested curbing our meat consumption for better health.

But the authors of the new studies argue that people can “continue their current consumption of both unprocessed red meat and processed meat,” meaning whatever amount they’re currently eating. That’s because the health impact of cutting back is either nonexistent or small, and the evidence of any harms is so weak, that it’d be misleading to suggest people should avoid meat for health reasons.

TOS
User avatar
meh, wait till next week's study

"eat two burgers and your dick falls off"
It's not really that surprising. When I was doing the hard core part of my diet my only form of calories was from protein, with my body supplying the fat. A low cal diet with a heavy emphasis on fats and protein is much more effective than one focused on carbs or fruits and veggies with minimal nutritional value.
Vulture 420
User avatar
Not surprised, it's the bread and refined carbohydrates and sugar that kills people, not the meat. I eat mostly meat every day and keep my carbs at or below 50g per day. Meat never was the enemy, and neither are eggs.
Image

now to post pictures of people's meat.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
that's porn


Yup... :heh:
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I always thought the reasons for not eating meat were moral and ecological, not nutritional.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
Metacell posted:
I always thought the reasons for not eating meat were moral and ecological, not nutritional.


Some people believe that nothing pollutes the earth more than "meat", because all the trucks transporting it, and all the trucks transporting the cattle food, and the millions of tons of their human waste releasing methane into the atmosphere...

SO, to save the planet, we gotta eat them all!
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
Metacell posted:
I always thought the reasons for not eating meat were moral and ecological, not nutritional.


Some people believe that nothing pollutes the earth more than "meat", because all the trucks transporting it, and all the trucks transporting the cattle food, and the millions of tons of their human waste releasing methane into the atmosphere...

SO, to save the planet, we gotta eat them all!


Apparently one of the least "green" meats on the market is lamb.
Beef is up there as well.
Dr. Steven Novella weighed in on this but his conclusion was:
Quote:
Based on weak evidence of a small effect size, do we tell people to change their eating habits? These authors decided no, while other experts erred on the side of caution to recommend limiting red and processed meat.

There are two things that everyone seems to agree on – we need better quality data, and we are unlikely to get it. We simply cannot do the large, long term, randomized controlled trial that would settle the debate. So we must be content with small controlled trials or large uncontrolled observational studies. If the true effect size is on the low side, however, this type of data is unlikely to ever definitely settle the controversy.

Mind you: he is pointing accusatory fingers at BOTH sides: the people behind this study are making a statement which cannot stand up to careful scientific scrutiny BUT that applies equally to those people who previously had "declared" that red and/or processed meats are "bad" for you. The bases for both conclusions are from weak evidence that can be interpreted both ways.

But his conclusion is ONLY on the direct health benefits/harm of eating red/processed meats. Others here have gone onto other topics which go beyond this and have their own (de)merits but they are not directly related to the health of the person eating such meat products.
Vulture 420
User avatar
So hungry this morning, can't wait to devour about a pound of pork followed by some milk. Last meal was around 5pm last night so I'm well fasted.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Dr. Steven Novella weighed in on this but his conclusion was:
Quote:
Based on weak evidence of a small effect size, do we tell people to change their eating habits? These authors decided no, while other experts erred on the side of caution to recommend limiting red and processed meat.

There are two things that everyone seems to agree on – we need better quality data, and we are unlikely to get it. We simply cannot do the large, long term, randomized controlled trial that would settle the debate. So we must be content with small controlled trials or large uncontrolled observational studies. If the true effect size is on the low side, however, this type of data is unlikely to ever definitely settle the controversy.

Mind you: he is pointing accusatory fingers at BOTH sides: the people behind this study are making a statement which cannot stand up to careful scientific scrutiny BUT that applies equally to those people who previously had "declared" that red and/or processed meats are "bad" for you. The bases for both conclusions are from weak evidence that can be interpreted both ways.

But his conclusion is ONLY on the direct health benefits/harm of eating red/processed meats. Others here have gone onto other topics which go beyond this and have their own (de)merits but they are not directly related to the health of the person eating such meat products.



I've heard Novella say something along the following about diet that is probably more truthful than any diet guru has ever said:
Eat a variety of things, not too much, mostly vegetables.


Sure it has no specifics--rightfully so.
People who zero on on specific things like grains, carbs, meat, HFCS, as being THE magic bullet are the ones talking BS.
Vulture 420
User avatar
Eat vegetables to obtain minerals and vitamins with greatest absorption rates. Things like Magnesium, Potassium, Vitamins A and K, and trace minerals. Also, since eating vegetables in the beneficial amounts constitutes a large volume, it looks like mostly vegetables. Your body needs things like choline, Vitamins E, D, and B, mostly derived from animal sources, as well as much needed fats.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Meat's back on the menu