Anyone else on the "Why We Get Fat" (Taubes) diet? (doctors, diabetic)
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.
As for nutritional advantages, what are they exactly? Meat (and here I'm referring to mammal meat) is fairly hard to obtain and is relatively nutrient poor, the only advantage it has is that its high in protein but the extra protein wouldn't be needed.
Not true. Meat, especially red meat, is good source of iron. Yes, there are plant foods that contain iron (non-heme iron) but it's not as easily absorbed as meat iron (heme iron). If you're anemic and vegan, then you'll probably need to take iron supplements. I'm anemic and vegetarian, so I'm very well aware of this issue.
Then what is your definition of "flesh food"? Can you give me a link to a dictionary that explains your definition?
Huh? A dictionary link that explains my definition? When I said "flesh food" I was referring to the meat of mammals.
Omnivores don't eat plants and animals "by definition",they eat plant and animal based foods by definition. Eggs, for example, aren't animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You were the one who said other primates do not eat meat. Chimps are primates and they eat meat.
Nope....I said no such thing. I said that the consumption of flesh foods is relatively rare in the primate world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Perhaps that is why humans have adapted to getting B12 from animal sources.
Humans are poorly adapted to digest B12 from animal sources, that is why people over 50 are recommended to supplement with B12 regardless of whether they eat meat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
'Vegetarian, vegan and raw diets can be healthy — likely far healthier than the typical American diet. But to continue to call these diets "natural" for humans, in terms of evolution, is a bit of a stretch, according to two recent, independent studies.
If you look at the studies the article is citing, you'll quickly find that the authors comments in this article (which aren't the comments from the researchers) are hyperbole.
Discuss the actual studies, not a journalist hyperbole about the studies. The author of this article clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. The author claims that because paleoanthropologists found a 1.5 million year old hominid (they, rather oddly call it "prehuman") with signs of iron and vitamin b deficiencies that this is a sign that meat would be "integral" to humans. It would seem that this author has never heard of a parasite, a nasty parasite result in nutritional deficiencies regardless of diet. The authors claims are entirely baseless, not only do we not know if the fossils in question are actually our ancestors but we don't know why they had nutritional deficiencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Beef steak contains 93 percent of the daily value for vitamin B12 per serving, 89 percent of the daily value for zinc and 46 percent of the daily value for phosphorus. It also has 36 percent of the daily value for sodium, 41 percent of the daily value for niacin and 37 percent of the daily value for vitamin B6. Additional nutrients in beef steak include 33 percent of the daily value for iron, 20 percent of the daily value for potassium and 24 percent of the daily value for riboflavin.
And per calorie that isn't very much, that is for ~700 calories of beef. Let's compare it to 100 calories of romaine lettuce (roughly a head): 1000% vitamin A, 250% vitamin C, 800% vitamin K, 30% Thiamin, 25% b2, 200% folate, 34% iron, 21% calcium, 10% zinc, etc. Per calorie, romaine lettuce is far more nutrient dense than beef steak. Let's do another comparison, the common white potato, this time 700 calories worth: 100% vitamin C, 100% b6, 100% potassium, 40% niacin, 40% folate, 40% iron, etc. Even the common white potato is more nutrient dense than beef steak.
The idea that meat (from mammals) provided nutritional benefits to early hominid is a strange idea since mammal meats are, on average, much less nutrient dense than plant foods.
Even for your beloved B12, and ignoring that its readily available in the environment, there are far better sources of it than mammal meat. Insects, bivalves and numerous other small animals are rich sources of B12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
If we were not "adapted" to eat meat, we would not be able to eat it.
All animals can digest animal proteins.....even herbivores. Being able to put something down your throat and break it down doesn't mean you're adapted to do it.
I'm not sure why you keep citing journalists and blog posts......obviously you're trying to stir up as much dust as you can without actually addressing the real issues.
Not true. Meat, especially red meat, is good source of iron. Yes, there are plant foods that contain iron (non-heme iron) but it's not as easily absorbed as meat iron (heme iron). If you're anemic and vegan, then you'll probably need to take iron supplements. I'm anemic and vegetarian, so I'm very well aware of this issue.
Red meat isn't really a good source of iron, its a moderate source, and other mammal meats range from poor to fair. The strong association between beef and iron in popular opinion is due to beef industry marketing rather than nutritional reality. For example, take 100 calories of the following foods and their iron content:
As you can see, the iron content of beef steak isn't very impressive. But, as you mention, meat contains heme iron. But its not all heme-iron, only around 40% of the iron in meat is heme-iron. Though, interestingly, heme-iron increases the absorption of non-heme iron so overall the iron in meat is better absorbed. But its not enough to offset the poor overall iron levels in steak.
As for being vegan and anemic, supplements usually aren't required. Most anemic vegans can improve their iron status by incorporating more iron rich foods in their diet and trying to incorporate vitamin c rich foods with iron rich foods, vitamin c greatly increase the absorption of plant-based iron.
But many studies have found similar links. Another one that followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years found that those who ate a Western-style diet high in red and processed meats, desserts, refined grains, and French fries had an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and death from other causes.
I see this kind of absurdity in nutrition studies and articles all the time.
A diet high in all of that is evidence that red meat is bad for you? Substitute tofu for red meat and you'll almost certainly find the same effects.
I do not care for red meat. I eat it about once per month, mostly as an excuse to make chimichurri sauce. It may not be conducive to great health, but with this kind of pin the tail on the donkey-style research masquerading as evidence of its ill effects I'm not totally convinced.
Incredible how researchers and journalists can manage to study diets full of bologna, hot dogs, donuts, coca cola, fast food French fries fried in rancid overused oils, and Monster energy drinks, and then conclude that red meat is the cause of the negative health outcomes.
If you consider the rest of the diet, processed vs. unprocessed meats, grain-fed vs. grass-fed, HCAs formed from grilling and/or overcooking (which 90% of the population does), presence of hormones and anti-biotics, etc. I'm a little skeptical that there is something inherently wrong with beef.
Incredible how researchers and journalists can manage to study diets full of bologna, hot dogs, donuts, coca cola, fast food French fries fried in rancid overused oils, and Monster energy drinks, and then conclude that red meat is the cause of the negative health outcomes.
No legitimate researcher would make this conclusion, what journalists say about studies is a different matter entirely.
But there are a number of well conducted studies that link red meat to cancer, heart disease, etc.
No legitimate researcher would make this conclusion, what journalists say about studies is a different matter entirely.
But there are a number of well conducted studies that link red meat to cancer, heart disease, etc.
Depends on what you consider well conducted. I would like to see a diet which includes fairly regular unprocessed red meat consumption, as part of a diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, beans and legumes, herbs and spices, etc. vs. similar diets that do not include red meat. I have yet a see a study where the quality of the rest of the diet outside of the red meat was really considered. So it's difficult to determine how much of it is real and how much is confounding. And beyond that, is ground beef which contains skeletal tissue, connective tissue, blood vessels, peripheral nerve tissue, etc. the same as a steak? Is a medium well steak the same as well done shoe leather? A grass-fed strip steak the same as salami?
The single largest form that beef is sold as is ground beef. I can't find a specific number, but judging by the supermarket shelf, it seems that maybe 1/3 or more of beef is sold in the form of ground beef. Ground beef is typically used in hamburgers, tacos, hamburger helper, chili, etc. Hamburgers are typically consumed with soft drinks, chips, french fries, etc. Another significant portion is sold as processed meats like salami, sausage, pepperoni, lunch meat, etc. which contain nitrates, and are also frequently consumed with chips, french fries, etc. So if you take two populations, one which eats a lot of red meat, and one which doesn't, and compare the two, what are you actually comparing?
You could do a similar study with pollock consumption. Pollock is a cheap fish usually breaded and fried and used in fast food and frozen fish sticks and other junk food. Compare people who consume a lot of pollock and people who don't and you're probably going to see negative health outcomes in the people who eat the most pollock. Not because of the pollock itself, but because they're getting the pollock at Long John Silver's (which has a meal which contains 33 grams of trans fat) and Wendy's, or from Van De Camps fish sticks.
The mechanism that is presented for beef's supposed harmful effects is constantly changing all the time as well. It's the cholesterol that's the problem. No, it's the saturated fat that's the problem. No wait, it's the animal protein, not the saturated fat. No, it's the heme iron. No, it's the carnitine. No, it's still the saturated fat.
Our study didn't find what we expected to find, what did we did we do wrong? What can we change next time to get the "correct" result? They start with a conclusion and then play pin the tail on the donkey. Though to be fair, some of the studies funded by meat and dairy groups also look for certain results.
The Mediterranean diets that do so well in so many heart disease studies usually allow red meat consumption up to once per week, which I would most definitely consider regular red meat consumption. Yet they do not show the same results. I'm not convinced that red meat isn't relatively bad for you either, but the way most of the research is conducted makes me seriously doubt the results.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 07-04-2013 at 10:42 AM..
Depends on what you consider well conducted. I would like to see a diet which includes fairly regular unprocessed red meat consumption, as part of a diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, beans and legumes, herbs and spices, etc. vs. similar diets that do not include red meat.
Due to ethical considerations, its nearly impossible to remove all confounding variables from a nutritional study on humans. We can't lock people up like rats and feed them controlled diets. But the studies on red meat are just as well conducted as other nutritional studies, almost all control for BMI, etc and many will look into other aspects of diet. But the consumption of meat will reduce the consumption of other foods in one's diet, so controlling for these doesn't make much sense. For example, if one eats red meat they are less likely to eat chicken, legumes, nuts, etc for protein.
Regardless, I'm not going to bother posting the studies because they are easy to find. Plus, its not too difficult to poke holes in nutritional studies because they always have confounding variables. Its the research, as a whole, that provides the most information. Red meat has been consistently linked to both heart disease and cancer both in small and large studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
The mechanism that is presented for beef's supposed harmful effects is constantly changing all the time as well. It's the cholesterol that's the problem. No, it's the saturated fat that's the problem. No wait, it's the animal protein, not the saturated fat. No, it's the heme iron. No, it's the carnitine. No, it's still the saturated fat.
Yes, our understanding of matters has changed....I'm not sure why you think that is a bad thing. What would be bad is if scientists stuck to the first hypothesis regardless of the evidence, thankfully they haven't done that. But its like things have changed dramatically, cholesterol is still seen as a factor but other issues were discovered that may be more important.
Also, you can't equate well established findings with new research. For example, the issue with carnitine was just discovered. More research needs to be done, but this research doesn't negate the research on cholesterol and saturated fat. There may be multiple mechanisms by which red meat contributes to heart disease and cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
The Mediterranean diets that do so well in so many heart disease studies usually allow red meat consumption up to once per week, which I would most definitely consider regular red meat consumption.
Umm...huh? Once per week? That is hardly anything. Unless red meat was highly carcinogenic, etc you wouldn't expect to find statistically significant results with so little consumption. The recent study from Harvard that linked red meat to heart disease and cancer looked at one serving per day.
Also, the Mediterranean diet really doesn't do "so well", it doesn't reduce heart disease rates nearly as much as you see in some other cultures. It just reduces them from the standard western diet.
Umm...huh? Once per week? That is hardly anything. Unless red meat was highly carcinogenic, etc you wouldn't expect to find statistically significant results with so little consumption. The recent study from Harvard that linked red meat to heart disease and cancer looked at one serving per day.
Also, the Mediterranean diet really doesn't do "so well", it doesn't reduce heart disease rates nearly as much as you see in some other cultures. It just reduces them from the standard western diet.
Once a week to me is fairly regular consumption. It's usually not the only meat a person eats, they're also eating chicken, shrimp, fish, etc.
7x per week is pretty high. If you look at the data from that Healthy Professionals Follow-up Study used in this study the 1st quintile had a smoking rate of 5%. The highest quintile had a smoking rate of 14%. Physical activity was 27.5 in the 1st compared to 17.2 in the highest quintile. So there are pretty major differences in the healthy habits of the two groups beyond red meat consumption. Many of these factors are adjusted for, but not all. The highest red meat eaters overwhelmingly tend to lead very unhealthy lives all around.
Other studies
The China Study
Quote:
“[W]e found that red meat intake was positively associated with total mortality among men, but not among women. This discrepant association was also observed for lung cancer mortality. Further, red meat intake was positively associated with the risk of ischemic heart disease mortality, which was statistically significant among men. In contrast, red meat intake was inversely associated with the risk of hemorrhagic stroke mortality, which was statistically significant among women. Among men, the positive association between red meat intake and total mortality was significant in the low-income group, but no association was observed in the high-income group….”
The smoking rates for men at the time were about 70%, for women they were about 3%. That might be why there was a correlation for men but not women. They attempted to adjust for smoking, but how well, I'm not sure.
Or it could be that men are more negatively impacted by the heme iron in red meat since they do not lose blood as often as women.
Or red meat and smoking together have a greater negative impact than the sum of the two individual behaviors.
NHANES- no association for red meat, processed meat, or fish consumption on total mortality in the fully adjusted model.
The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)- Processed meat associated with increase in total mortality. Red meat and poultry were neutral in the fully adjusted models. Red meat had some trends towards increased mortality and poultry had some trends towards decreased.
Harvard- unprocessed red and processed red meat associated with increase in total mortality.
Which was in opposition to another study they did 2 years earlier:
Quote:
Conclusions— Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.
Very high red meat consumption (2x per day) appears to have negative health effects. 1x per day might. Less than once per day, not sure.
Questions remain about grass fed vs. grain fed and properly cooked vs. charred shoe leather full of carcinogens.
As far as the Mediterranean diet, do you know of any studies comparing it to other diets generally considered healthy? I'm not aware of any, and it's not for lack of looking. I've seen a few studies where it outperformed certain low-fat diets but that's about it. Researchers constantly put Mediterranean-style diets at the top of the list.
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.
Substitute tofu for red meat and you'll almost certainly find the same effects.
