Red Meat is Not What is Killing You.

[Anastasis 23,463]

Chalk one to the America fuck yeah column. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

Link to the actual journal article: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.

 

Image

The health effects of red meat consumption are detectable only in the largest groups, researchers concluded, and advice to individuals to cut back may not be justified by available data.CreditCreditPaul J. Richards/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Gina Kolata

• Sept. 30, 2019Updated 7:44 p.m. ET
• •  
  •  
  •  
  • 491

Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.

“The certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low,” said Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and leader of the group publishing the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Sign Up for NYT Parenting

From the team at NYT Parenting: Get the latest news and guidance for parents. We'll celebrate the little parenting moments that mean a lot — and share stories that matter to families.

SIGN UP

 

 

The new analyses are among the largest such evaluations ever attempted and may influence future dietary recommendations. In many ways, they raise uncomfortable questions about dietary advice and nutritional research, and what sort of standards these studies should be held to.

Already they have been met with fierce criticism by public health researchers. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them.

 

• Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in

 

 

Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group advocating a plant-based diet, on Wednesday filed a petition against the journal with the Federal Trade Commission. Dr. Frank Sacks, past chair of the American Heart Association’s nutrition committee, called the research “fatally flawed.”

While the new findings are likely to please proponents of popular high-protein diets, they seem certain to add to public consternation over dietary advice that seems to change every few years. The conclusions represent another in a series of jarring dietary reversals involving salt, fats, carbohydrates and more.

 

The prospect of a renewed appetite for red meat also runs counter to two other important trends: a growing awareness of the environmental degradation caused by livestock production, and longstanding concern about the welfare of animals employed in industrial farming.

 

That Perplexing Red Meat Controversy: 5 Things to Know

It may be the most unexpected dietary finding to come along in years.

Sept. 30, 2019

Beef in particular is not just another foodstuff: It was a treasured symbol of post-World War II prosperity, set firmly in the center of America’s dinner plate. But as concerns about its health effects have risen, consumption of beef has fallen steadily since the mid 1970s, largely replaced by poultry.

“Red meat used to be a symbol of high social class, but that’s changing,” said Dr. Frank Hu, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston. Today, the more highly educated Americans are, the less red meat they eat, he noted.

Still, the average American eats about 4 1/2 servings of red meat a week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some 10 percent of the population eats at least two servings a day.

The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.

In three reviews, the group looked at studies asking whether eating red meat or processed meats affected the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.

 

 

To assess deaths from any cause, the group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease (there are very few), as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.

In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and disease and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.

That is not to say that those links don’t exist. But they are mostly in studies that observe groups of people, a weak form of evidence. Even then, the health effects of red meat consumption are detectable only in the largest groups, the team concluded, and an individual cannot conclude that he or she will be better off not eating red meat.

 

 

 

Image

Critics of the new studies say nutritional research cannot be held to the same standards as drug trials.CreditRobert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

A fourth study asked why people like red meat, and whether they were interested in eating less to improve their health. If Americans were highly motivated by even modest heath hazards, then it might be worth continuing to advise them to eat less red meat.

But the conclusion? The evidence even for this is weak, but the researchers found that “omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects.”

Taken together, the analyses raise questions about the longstanding dietary guidelines urging people to eat less red meat, experts said.

 

 

“The guidelines are based on papers that presumably say there is evidence for what they say, and there isn’t,” said Dr. Dennis Bier, director of the Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and past editor of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

David Allison, dean of the Indiana University School of Public Health—Bloomington, cited “a difference between a decision to act and making a scientific conclusion.”

It is one thing for an individual to believe eating less red meat and processed meat will improve health. But he said, “if you want to say the evidence shows that eating red meat or processed meats has these effects, that’s more objective,” adding “the evidence does not support it.”

Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers.

The new studies were met with indignation by nutrition researchers who have long said that red meat and processed meats contribute to the risk of heart disease and cancer.

“Irresponsible and unethical,” said Dr. Hu, of Harvard, in a commentary published online with his colleagues. Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, he said, but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility.

Nutrition studies, he added, should not be held to the same rigid standards as studies of experimental drugs.

 

 

Evidence of red meat’s hazards still persuaded the American Cancer Society, said Marjorie McCullough, a senior scientific director of the group.

“It is important to recognize that this group reviewed the evidence and found the same risk from red and processed meat as have other experts,” she said in a statement. “So they’re not saying meat is less risky; they’re saying the risk that everyone agrees on is acceptable for individuals.”

At the heart of the debate is a dispute over nutritional research itself, and whether it’s possible to ascertain the effects of just one component of the diet. The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, in which one group of participants is assigned one drug or diet, and another is assigned a different intervention or a placebo.

 

10 Findings That Contradict Medical Wisdom. Doctors, Take Note.

July 1, 2019

But asking people to stick to a diet assigned by a flip of a coin, and to stay with it long enough to know if it affects the risk for heart attack or cancer, is nearly impossible.

The alternative is an observational study: Investigators ask people what they eat and look for links to health. But it can be hard to know what people really are eating, and people who eat a lot of meat are different in many other ways from those who eat little or none.

“Do individuals who habitually consume burgers for lunch typically also consume fries and a Coke, rather than yogurt or a salad and a piece of fruit?” asked Alice Lichtenstein, a nutritionist at Tufts University. “I don’t think an evidence-based position can be taken unless we know and adjust for the replacement food.”

 

 

The findings are a time to reconsider how nutritional research is done in the country, some researchers said, and whether the results really help to inform an individual’s decisions.

“I would not run any more observational studies,” said Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor who studies health research and policy. “We have had enough of them. It is extremely unlikely that we are missing a large signal,” referring to a large effect of any particular dietary change on health.

Despite flaws in the evidence, health officials still must give advice and offer guidelines, said Dr. Meir Stampfer, also of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He believes that the data in favor of eating less meat, although imperfect, indicate there are likely to be health benefits.

One way to give advice would be to say “reduce your red meat intake,” Dr. Stampfer said. But then, “People would say, ‘Well, what does that mean?’”

Officials making recommendations feel they have to suggest a number of servings. Yet when they do, “that gives it an aura of having greater accuracy than exists,” he added.

Questions of personal health do not even begin to address the environmental degradation caused worldwide by intensive meat production. Meat and dairy are big contributors to climate change, with livestock production accounting for about 14.5 percent of the greenhouse gases that humans emit worldwide each year.

Beef in particular tends to have an outsized climate footprint, partly because of all the land needed to raise cattle and grow feed, and partly because cows belch up methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

 

 

Researchers have estimated that, on average, beef has about five times the climate impact of chicken or pork, per gram of protein. Plant-based foods tend to have an even smaller impact.

Perhaps there is no way to make policies that can be conveyed to the public and simultaneously communicate the breadth of scientific evidence concerning diet.

Or maybe, said Dr. Bier, policymakers should try something more straightforward: “When you don’t have the highest-quality evidence, the correct conclusion is ‘maybe.’”

Reporting was contributed by Brad Plumer in Washington.

[TwiceHorn 31,440]

Yeah, I threw that notion out along with don't eat eggs (unfortunately I don't like em)  and butter and eat a low-fat (high carb) diet.

This one seems to have come from the same place as the assumption that eating cholesterol leads to high serum cholesterol, when you know damn well about a jillion complicated steps occur between digesting food and the contents of the bloodstream.  Jesus fuck.

Edited October 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry?

 

[brown water 3,775]

tldr. But nonetheless in 100% agreement. 

[Hate 20,107]

 

Can they go ahead and come to the same conclusion with bacon now, please?

Edited October 1, 2019 by Hate

[Deej 76,755]

Steel Shank'd!

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868]

A popular present hypothesis for contributing factors to the American obesity epidemic is the rampant use of antibiotics in livestock raised for consumption is killing off our good intestinal bio flora. 

Don't know how you conduct a years long double blind study controlling everything the participants ate for verification. 

[Sandman 3,403]

I don't care what some "officials" say, if John Redcorn starts hanging around my house, I'm gonna pull his fucking card.

[ernest_t_bass 1,196]

Vic focusing on...

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by ernest_t_bass

[futureman 22,444]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I threw that notion out along with don't eat eggs (unfortunately I don't like em)  and butter and eat a low-fat (high carb) diet.

This one seems to have come from the same place as the assumption that eating cholesterol leads to high serum cholesterol, when you know damn well about a jillion complicated steps occur between digesting food and the contents of the bloodstream.  Jesus fuck.

diet has an almost negligible effect on blood cholesterol levels.  people just believe whatever snippets of attractive info run across their screen. 

[TwiceHorn 31,440]

4 minutes ago, futureman said:

diet has an almost negligible effect on blood cholesterol levels.  people just believe whatever snippets of attractive info run across their screen. 

Medicine sold a correlation between foods containing cholesterol and serum cholesterol hard for many years.

That, in turn, permitted big ag to pump out a lot of "LOW FAT111!!!" foods that were shitty in every other way and were a big producing cause of the obesity epidemic.

[Anastasis 23,463]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Medicine sold a correlation between foods containing cholesterol and serum cholesterol hard for many years.

 

Kind of interesting how the paradigm related to cholesterol emerged contemporaneous to the development of medications that alter endogenous production of cholesterol. 

[Jerry Callo 8,699]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Medicine sold a correlation between foods containing cholesterol and serum cholesterol hard for many years.

That, in turn, permitted big ag to pump out a lot of "LOW FAT111!!!" foods that were shitty in every other way and were a big producing cause of the obesity epidemic.

Yeah.  The story behind how high carb foods became the recommended base for the diet is ridiculous.  

[wood 11,225]

13 hours ago, futureman said:

diet has an almost negligible effect on blood cholesterol levels.  people just believe whatever snippets of attractive info run across their screen. 

...and what our own doctors & nutritionists have been telling us practically our entire fucking lives. 

The longer I've lived and seen my own body react counter to how these fucks say it will, the less I trust any of 'em.

Edited October 1, 2019 by wood

[wood 11,225]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Medicine sold a correlation between foods containing cholesterol and serum cholesterol hard for many years.

That, in turn, permitted big ag to pump out a lot of "LOW FAT111!!!" foods that were shitty in every other way and were a big producing cause of the obesity epidemic.

 

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Kind of interesting how the paradigm related to cholesterol emerged contemporaneous to the development of medications that alter endogenous production of cholesterol. 

 

2 hours ago, Jerry Callo said:

Yeah.  The story behind how high carb foods became the recommended base for the diet is ridiculous.  

Yep. Just take a look sometime at how much of your favorite grocery store's capacity is dedicated to grains/carbs, etc. It's pretty fucking shocking...

[Gene Parmesan 4,003]

Bourbon will kill me long before my diet will, so I eat what tastes good.

[BabaYaga 15,289]

13 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

A popular present hypothesis for contributing factors to the American obesity epidemic is the rampant use of antibiotics in livestock raised for consumption is killing off our good intestinal bio flora. 

Don't know how you conduct a years long double blind study controlling everything the participants ate for verification. 

Maybe.  Probably.  But I'd argue while that is a contributing factor, SUGAR kills more jelly-bellies each year than almost anything else.  One of the biggest lies ever perpetuated on society was that dog shit carb-heavy food pyramid.  

Sugar is in EVERYTHING.  Almost all modern medical ailments are caused by abundance.  A radical shift from generations past.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

15 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry?

 

They say its harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke.

[wood 11,225]

28 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

One of the biggest lies ever perpetuated on society was that dog shit carb-heavy food pyramid.  

I remember seeing this too, in my youth, I guess in the 80s. Huge sham ... telling people to eat carbs for breakfast, etc because 'eggs, fat, & red meat are killing us'. But whenever I bring it up, nobody seems to know what I'm talking about.

[Junior Miller 1,502]

41 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe.  Probably.  But I'd argue while that is a contributing factor, SUGAR kills more jelly-bellies each year than almost anything else.  One of the biggest lies ever perpetuated on society was that dog shit carb-heavy food pyramid.  

Sugar is in EVERYTHING.  Almost all modern medical ailments are caused by abundance.  A radical shift from generations past.

It seems high sugar diets combined with overeating are what cause the issues. 

I think the whole "eat many small meals a day" thing is bullshit too. It runs completely counter to how human bodies evolved over the millenia. If our ancestors' biology required many feedings over the course of a day we wouldn't be here as humans would have gone extinct long ago when food was scarce and the body had to be able to survive on infrequent feedings.

Probably the best is to try hard to limit sugars and otherwise eat a large variety of things in small quantities so as to avoid too much food weighing down the body at any given time. Variety in diet and portion control combined with consistent physical activity 

[BabaYaga 15,289]

1 minute ago, Junior Miller said:

It seems high sugar diets combined with overeating are what cause the issues. 

I think the whole "eat many small meals a day" thing is bullshit too. It runs completely counter to how human bodies evolved over the millenia. If our ancestors' biology required many feedings over the course of a day we wouldn't be here as humans would have gone extinct long ago when food was scarce and the body had to be able to survive on infrequent feedings.

Probably the best is to try hard to limit sugars and otherwise eat a large variety of things in small quantities so as to avoid too much food weighing down the body at any given time. Variety in diet and portion control combined with consistent physical activity 

IMF is a huge tool as well as it relates to your point (fasting, cellular autophagy).  I've never gone in deep and done any of the 48-72 fasts.  I've come close to 24hr once, but generally stick with a 14-16 hr fasting window each day combined with a lean protein diet high in raw vegetables and nuts/legumes.  Low in refined sugars obviously, but we all have moments of weakness and I stay quite active.  It's interesting, in the book "Sapiens", Harari intimates that the diversity of the hunter/gatherer diet was among the most healthy in recorded, modern history.  

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

[BabaYaga 15,289]

WALL-E wasn't meant to be a documentary

[Gene Parmesan 4,003]

People still eat like they are going to be out working on the farm all day.  You are going to be sitting at a computer desk all day and then a  couch all evening.  You don't need to eat much to sustain that.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Love how the NYT piece describes the elite academia and medicine thought police railing against these findings. Laughed out loud at the condescension by the author and tying the consumption of red meat to climate change in an attempt to discourage people from enjoying the heavenly bliss of red meat. I will have a steak tonight to celebrate.

[wood 11,225]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

IMF is a huge tool as well as it relates to your point (fasting, cellular autophagy).  I've never gone in deep and done any of the 48-72 fasts.  I've come close to 24hr once, but generally stick with a 14-16 hr fasting window each day combined with a lean protein diet high in raw vegetables and nuts/legumes.  Low in refined sugars obviously, but we all have moments of weakness and I stay quite active.  It's interesting, in the book "Sapiens", Harari intimates that the diversity of the hunter/gatherer diet was among the most healthy in recorded, modern history.  

I don't even know what IMF is, but this is interesting to me, because counter to everything I've been taught about eating more earlier in the day than later, etc, I tend to lose weight or just maintain a set weight easier when I eat nothing at all in the morning or only something very small, then don't eat anything else until dinner.

And some of you are no doubt much better versed on this than I am, but I bridle at the constantly over-asserted notion that there's only one 'best' way for everyone to eat for the best weight, health, and other performance concerns. People come into this world in all shapes, sizes, body types, blood types, etc, etc. There was a book (or probably more than one) that iirc indicated that your blood type was heavily tied to your primal ancestry and their lifestyle, diet, etc. There were diet suggestions for each blood type, with some  people need more plant-based protein, some being heavy on red meat, some being veggie heavy, etc.. I can't remember the specifics, but I do remember thinking it made a whole lot of sense to me. But what the fuck do I know...

4 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

But yeah, it's really pretty much this simple imho, at least in terms of losing weight, esp when you add in a little exercise (actual physical work counts, imho).

4 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

People still eat like they are going to be out working on the farm all day.  You are going to be sitting at a computer desk all day and then a  couch all evening.  You don't need to eat much to sustain that.

Exactly. "Working out" only started to be a thing for non-athletes in the mid-70s. Before that, why the fuck did most people need to work out? Many of them had just physically worked their asses off all day. No point in working out.

[BabaYaga 15,289]

2 minutes ago, wood said:

I don't even know what IMF is, but this is interesting to me, because counter to everything I've been taught about eating more earlier in the day than later, etc, I tend to lose weight or just maintain a set weight easier when I eat nothing at all in the morning or only something very small, then don't eat anything else until dinner.

Intermittent fasting - which you just perfectly described.  The earlier in the day nonsense dates back to our agrarian, European roots.  Up and early for a long day of physical exertion.  This was fine during times of scarcity.

Fast forward to now, and virtually every modern ailment is a malady of abundance.  We were made to move.  To go long periods of time without feeding.  With an amazing range of bio-available options to sustain us.

We are "hard-wired" to be attracted to sugar and fatty, calorie-dense food options for the before-mentioned reasons.  With such an abundance available to us, we eat like proverbial pigs.  Millions die each year from obesity-related ailments.  Your brain literally has to bypass everything else and force yourself to eat healthy, diverse, and primarily raw food options (protein not withstanding).  This is why those that initially try those caloric-restriction diets (primarily vegan) feel so "great" initially.  That's the cellular autophagy discarding all the old, dying cells.  Same with the all meat "carnivore" diet Jordan Petterson and his daughter, Mikala have made so famous (and seem to be doing great on years into it).

[thrillhammer 683]

hard to read those findings and not get cloakroomy.  this smacks of trump and more pseudoscience.  this will go down as the era of the imbeciles.

[DCA_HORN 725]

I encourage everyone to watch Fat: a documentary.

[futureman 22,444]

2 hours ago, thrillhammer said:

hard to read those findings and not get cloakroomy.  this smacks of trump and more pseudoscience.  this will go down as the era of the imbeciles.

the old “axioms” are the pseudoscience?  or the new report debunking is the pseudoscience?  

[thrillhammer 683]

1 hour ago, futureman said:

the old “axioms” are the pseudoscience?  or the new report debunking is the pseudoscience?  

the new report.  this just in from the beef growers of America, red meat is good for you.  oh, and hormel says processed food is good for you too.  they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[Anastasis 23,463]

6 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

the new report.  this just in from the beef growers of America, red meat is good for you.  oh, and hormel says processed food is good for you too.  they're laughing all the way to the bank.

The disclosures of funding and potential conflicts of interest don't suggest untoward industry influence.  I do think it funny that each of the authors report how many servings of red meat they eat per week as part of the disclosures. That's a new one. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Anastasis

[futureman 22,444]

6 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

the new report.  this just in from the beef growers of America, red meat is good for you.  oh, and hormel says processed food is good for you too.  they're laughing all the way to the bank.

ok.  and trump’s behind it.  you’re making a great case. 

[SHOOTER12 8,800]

Education, moderation and masturbation... that's what made America great.

Not necessarily in that order.

[wood 11,225]

LOL yeah Trump's behind it ... in cahoots with the Canajuns.

Edited October 2, 2019 by wood

[F250 28,764]

I consume red meat approximately twice a month. My wife has bounced between a lacto-ovo vegetarian and pescatarian for the past twenty years. Over the past year, I've attempted to limit my protein intake to plant based supply due to her encouragement.

I've been into the Rippetoe strength training method for years and used to just focus on a basic "if it fits your macros" diet, which ignored the protein source as long as it was protein. For the past year I've restricted red meat and added plant based protein sources and the usual poultry, fish and venison sources, I like to hunt and fish. I will say that my blood work has come back much improved and my dumps have been extremely regular since changing my protein sources. Only problem is it is a bitch to get in the necessary protein intake from plant sources. Eating can be a pain in the ass.

 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

6 hours ago, wood said:

I don't even know what IMF is

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

11 hours ago, wood said:

I remember seeing this too, in my youth, I guess in the 80s. Huge sham ... telling people to eat carbs for breakfast, etc because 'eggs, fat, & red meat are killing us'. But whenever I bring it up, nobody seems to know what I'm talking about.

Nnow imagine being someone who for the last twenty years has been telling diabetics to eat a low fat/high carb diet. It's not different that the people who got pissed about vaping. "Sure, people are gonna die, but I have a reputation to maintain."

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

5 hours ago, DCA_HORN said:

I encourage everyone to watch Fat: a documentary.

Are there great big, fat girls in that ?  No thank you.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[BabaYaga 15,289]

9 hours ago, F250 said:

Only problem is it is a bitch to get in the necessary protein intake from plant sources. Eating can be a pain in the ass.

True.  As is the bio-availability of the protein source.  See nonsense like this below:

Example - broccoli on paper has a significant amount of protein (the chart is wrong, but you get the point).  Problem is, it's not readily bio-available.  Nor is all protein created equal (essential amino acids).  From what I've read, it takes roughly twice the amount of vegetable-based protein to equal that in portions of meat (along with required additional supplementation needed for additional essential amino acids and minerals/vitamins - like B12).

*Caveat - I'm not a crazed, crossfit, bro-science lunkhead.  Amy Culp is a family friend, so I've spent years picking her brain on these topics (Amy was brought on board in 2012 to help as a dietitian for the Longhorn football team)

Longhorn Dietitian

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

True.  As is the bio-availability of the protein source.  See nonsense like this below:

Example - broccoli on paper has a significant amount of protein (the chart is wrong, but you get the point).  Problem is, it's not readily bio-available.  Nor is all protein created equal (essential amino acids).  From what I've read, it takes roughly twice the amount of vegetable-based protein to equal that in portions of meat (along with required additional supplementation needed for additional essential amino acids and minerals/vitamins - like B12).

*Caveat - I'm not a crazed, crossfit, bro-science lunkhead.  Amy Culp is a family friend, so I've spent years picking her brain on these topics (Amy was brought on board in 2012 to help as a dietitian for the Longhorn football team)

Longhorn Dietitian

This is true, but how much protein does the average American really need (compared to UT football players)? I would think that those that aren't looking to add muscle don't need 100-150g. I would imagine that 50g of meat protein over the course of a day is plenty when mixed in with vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. I'm a huge believer in Michael Pollan's thoughts on food and the Western Diet. I'm not a locavore as he wants people to be, but I do believe in eating whole foods. 

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[BabaYaga 15,289]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

This is true, but how much protein does the average American really need (compared to UT football players)? I would think that those that aren't looking to add muscle don't need 100-150g. I would imagine that 50g of meat protein over the course of a day is plenty when mixed in with vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. I'm a huge believer in Michael Pollan's thoughts on food and the Western Diet. I'm not a locavore as he wants people to be, but I do believe in eating whole foods. 

 

100%.  This ties back to the claim (that I agree with) that in the book Sapiens, the idea the vast diversity our of ancestors hunter/gatherer diet was optimal.  It's when we swing too far to one side (vegan vs. carnivore diet) that I tend to cringe some.  There are VAST biodiversity differences with people, so as always, there are exceptions.

Ultra-marathon runner Zach Bitter held/holds the 100 mile world record on a diet based 100% on meat (average a 7 minute mile for 100 miles, fed on nothing but red meat).  Guy's a savage.

Side note - why did it take Texas until 2012 to coordinate with a dietitian?  I remember Amy telling me players would crush these insane workouts, then hit McDonald's and think they were doing the right thing (calorie loading, etc.).  Many kids grew up eating most of their meals from a drive-through bag (or protein shakes/drinks) and had little to no understanding of vitamins/minerals/vegetables, etc.  HUGE gap that I'm glad they closed.  Teaching these kids to eat FOOD.  Real.  Food.  

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

I'm all in...and I might go back and read the article.

[Iceman 2,694]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:26 AM, wood said:

 

 

Yep. Just take a look sometime at how much of your favorite grocery store's capacity is dedicated to grains/carbs, etc. It's pretty fucking shocking...

Beer is a fundamental foodsource...

[Iceman 2,694]

6 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

 

So would you prefer 2 ounces of round steak or 2-3 cups of broccoli?  This slide is bullshit with the "100 calorie" descriptor. One serving of broccoli has 4g of protein. One serving of beef has 20g.

I love the hell outta "little trees" but I cannot recall ever eating 2-3 cups at one sitting.  I'd be farting for days...

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Iceman

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

On 9/30/2019 at 7:45 PM, Anastasis said:

Beef in particular tends to have an outsized climate footprint, partly because of all the land needed to raise cattle and grow feed, and partly because cows belch up methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

This is one of the things I have a bit of a problem with is that an acre of responsibly-grazed grassland is a better environment for a wide variety of creatures than is an acre of soybeans, corn, or just about any other crop.  I could list hundreds of plants and animals (from insects to mule deer) that can co-exist with cattle, but not with most crops. All I see and hear is talk about cow farts and murdering poor Betsy.

And, yes, I know that billions of acres are planted to raise feed for cattle, pigs, and poultry.

The same could be said for forests that are converted to cropland.

Edited October 2, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor

[BabaYaga 15,289]

20 minutes ago, Iceman said:

This slide is bullshit with the "100 calorie" description

Yeah, that was my entire point....

[BabaYaga 15,289]

13 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

This is one of the things I have a bit of a problem with is that an acre of responsibly-grazed grassland is a better environment for a wide variety of creatures than is an acre of soybeans, corn, or just about any other crop.  I could list hundreds of plants and animals (from insects to mule deer) that can co-exist with cattle, but not with most crops. All I see and hear is talk about cow farts and murdering poor Betsy.

And, yes, I know that billions of acres are planted to raise feed for cattle, pigs, and poultry.

The same could be said for forests that are converted to cropland.

We have a cattle grazing lease on our place.  Rotated out during hunting season.  Many, many, many ranchers that collectively contribute a massive percentage of the beef raised for consumption come from these smaller grazing leases.  This accounts for the majority of the life cycle of the animal.  The VAST majority of land used for cows is what they call "Marginal land"....meaning you can't grow crops on it if you wanted to (unless you can find a way to cultivate Mesquite Beans.  Please GOD, make this happen...).  So it's not like this is land that could be better allocated.

As for the methane, did nobody here take any chem classes?  Hydroxy-oxidation...methane?  It breaks down in a few years (8-10).  It's being destroyed at the same rate it's being created, and even if we all go nuts and ranches open across the world, the gases quickly break down.  

India (as is the case with almost all pollution issues) is the biggest culprit.  Those guys have more cattle than United States, the European Union and China combined....and they don't even eat the damn things!  It's milk.  So EVERYONE of us stops eating meat tomorrow, good F-ing luck getting Indians to stop drinking milk (they have shitty, skinny cows.  It takes about 15 to 20 cows in India to produce the same amount of milk as one cow here).  And our little fatties are getting more efficient thanks for genetics and breeding!  There are less than 10 million milk cows in the US.  Back in the 50-60's there were ten times as many.  So in that, we've reduced our "carbon footprint".  

[F250 28,764]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Side note - why did it take Texas until 2012 to coordinate with a dietitian?  I remember Amy telling me players would crush these insane workouts, then hit McDonald's and think they were doing the right thing (calorie loading, etc.). 

Some people in the program really liked cheeseburgers and fries..

 

 

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

50 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We have a cattle grazing lease on our place.  Rotated out during hunting season.  Many, many, many ranchers that collectively contribute a massive percentage of the beef raised for consumption come from these smaller grazing leases.  This accounts for the majority of the life cycle of the animal.  The VAST majority of land used for cows is what they call "Marginal land"....meaning you can't grow crops on it if you wanted to (unless you can find a way to cultivate Mesquite Beans.  Please GOD, make this happen...).  So it's not like this is land that could be better allocated.

As for the methane, did nobody here take any chem classes?  Hydroxy-oxidation...methane?  It breaks down in a few years (8-10).  It's being destroyed at the same rate it's being created, and even if we all go nuts and ranches open across the world, the gases quickly break down.  

India (as is the case with almost all pollution issues) is the biggest culprit.  Those guys have more cattle than United States, the European Union and China combined....and they don't even eat the damn things!  It's milk.  So EVERYONE of us stops eating meat tomorrow, good F-ing luck getting Indians to stop drinking milk (they have shitty, skinny cows.  It takes about 15 to 20 cows in India to produce the same amount of milk as one cow here).  And our little fatties are getting more efficient thanks for genetics and breeding!  There are less than 10 million milk cows in the US.  Back in the 50-60's there were ten times as many.  So in that, we've reduced our "carbon footprint".  

And the more urbanized and educated we become, the dumber we get. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor