Eating red meat, yes or no?

Remove this Banner Ad

People have already said it, but yeah depends on the meat.

If you live on nothing but wild Bison, you'll be a prime specimen that I will turn gay for.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Eat plenty of red meat

-boosts testosterone more than many other meats for a number of reasons
-is usually better quality meat than chicken and the like due to living conditions, diet etc. Think of chickens with very little living space pumped up on hormones/antibiotics. Conversely a cow in a country like Australia often gets a lot of grass and hay. The more yellow the beef fat the better (more likely grass fed over grain).
-concerned about cancer? Because meat can take a long time to digest (this is a good thing) if your diet is not adequate in terms of dietary fibre and water it may stay inside you too long causing it to rot in your intestines. This is where cancer in theory can be an issue long term. Ensure you have frequent regular bowel habits, drink plenty of water and eat tonnes of fibrous veggies.
-think fish is healthier? Unless it is actual wild caught fish (raised and "wild caught" in a giant permanent net doesn't count) the fish is likely higher in mercury than you want and affected by plastics and fake food. Canned fish (the only stuff a lot of us can afford) is pretty much garbage, due to the aforementioned plus the effect of the can itself (bisphenol A and the like).
-Eggs? Have you seen a battery hen? Get your own chooks or buy good eggs

In summary just eat read meat it's probably the healthiest choice in terms of value for money.
 
Jesus 90% of what we buy or eat would prob have some chemical touch it
unless you grow your own veg and fruit from heirloom seeds hand3d down from generations and not from a supermarket were it's controlled by seed company Monsanto id say we have no chance of living 100% Chem free
Then watering with water that's treated from a chemical plant or watering with rainwater from a sky that's sprayed daily with crud.

You cannot escape it
Not even growing yo74 own
 
Interesting read.


In November 2013, 23 cancer experts from eight countries gathered in Norway to examine the science related to colon cancer and red/processed meat. They concluded:

“…the interactions between meat, gut and health outcomes such as CRC [colorectal cancer] are very complex and are not clearly pointing in one direction….Epidemiological and mechanistic data on associations between red and processed meat intake and CRC are inconsistent and underlying mechanisms are unclear…Better biomarkers of meat intake and of cancer occurrence and updated food composition databases are required for future studies.” 1) To read the full report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24769880 [open access]

Translation: we don’t know if meat causes colorectal cancer. Now THAT is a responsible, honest, scientific conclusion.

How the WHO?
How could the WHO have come to such a different conclusion than this recent international gathering of cancer scientists? As you will see for yourself in my analysis below, the WHO made the following irresponsible decisions:

  1. The WHO cherry-picked studies that supported its anti-meat conclusions, ignoring those that showed either no connection between meat and cancer or even a protective effect of meat on colon cancer risk. These neutral and protective studies were specifically mentioned within the studies cited by the WHO (which makes one wonder whether the WHO committee members actually read the studies referenced in its own report).
  2. The WHO relied heavily on dozens of “epidemiological” studies (which by their very nature are incapable of demonstrating a cause and effect relationship between meat and cancer) to support its claim that meat causes cancer.
  3. The WHO cited a mere SIX experimental studies suggesting a possible link between meat and colorectal cancer, four of which were conducted by the same research group.
  4. THREE of the six experimental studies were conducted solely on RATS. Rats are not humans and may not be physiologically adapted to high-meat diets. All rats were injected with powerful carcinogenic chemicals prior to being fed meat. Yes, you read that correctly.
  5. Only THREE of the six experimental studies were human studies. All were conducted with a very small number of subjects and were seriously flawed in more than one important way. Examples of flaws include using unreliable or outdated biomarkers and/or failing to include proper controls.
  6. Some of the theories put forth by the WHO about how red/processed meat might cause cancer are controversial or have already been disproved. These theories were discredited within the texts of the very same studies cited to support the WHO’s anti-meat conclusions, again suggesting that the WHO committee members either didn’t read these studies or deliberately omitted information that didn’t support the WHO’s anti-meat position.
Bottom Line
When you get right down to it, the only plausible evidence to suggest that red meat might be risky to human colon health is contained in two, that’s TWO, human studies, both of which were very small and poorly designed, and therefore unable to give us useful information about the effects of red meat on cancer risk. These studies are inconclusive at best, and worthless at worst.




  1. http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/
 
People can live a long n healthy life incorporating quality meat in their diet but the more you eat the more risk to adverse effects when older, alot lies what your meat source eats n how it is raised n treated.
Im far from being a Vegan but have backed off my red consumption in recent years and feel better for it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ablett said:
People can live a long n healthy life incorporating quality meat in their diet but the more you eat the more risk to adverse effects when older, alot lies what your meat source eats n how it is raised n treated.
Im far from being a Vegan but have backed off my red consumption in recent years and feel better for it.
Click to expand...

And you have what research to back this up?
 
mcuzzy said:
- It isn't burnt
Click to expand...
This is the bit that puzzles me - I like rare steak, and a lot of the articles don't actually mention how well they cook the red meat in the first place.
I have read some reports on the link between burnt/overcooked meat and carcinogens but I tend not to eat my meat that way so hopefully avoid the worst fo it.

I don't eat processed meat because I avoid processed food in general, especially pork.
 
mcuzzy said:
After doing some brief research myself over the past few weeks I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with it.

Providing:

- Grass fed
- No hormones
- It isn't burnt
Click to expand...
I mean I wouldn't advocate a well done steak but a bit of charring is delightful and entirely healthy

g9xDEHs.png
 
Bacon is an interesting one. A lot of the warnings I've read previously have been to do with the nitrites/nitrates supposedly being unhealthy, but at uni we were recently assigned an interesting reading on the topic produced by the AIS. I can't seem to find it online, but the cliffs were:

- the biggest dietary source of nitrate is vegetables, providing about 80% of the average dietary intake, with the remainder coming mostly from processed meat and the water supply

- during the 60's health authorities began blaming nitrate for health issues, but these ideas have now largely been discredited. In contrast, there is now some evidence of health benefits

- Nitric oxide (NO) is an important chemical in our bodies, with its key function involving it acting as an acute vasodilator (helping regulate blood pressure). It was previously believed the synthesis of NO was reliant on a pathway involving the AA arginine, however we now know NO is broken down into nitrate which is then recycled via the nitrate-nitrite conversion pathway back into NO

- the discovery of this well-developed pathway supports the theory that dietary nitrate is useful rather than harmful

- Nitrate supplementation has been shown to enhance the effects of NO even in healthy people (ie reducing blood pressure)

- Recent studies have demonstrated chronic and acute intake of beetroot juice is associated with a consistent enhancement of exercise economy (reduced oxygen cost of exercise). These studies have used a true placebo of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice, confirming that the nitrate content is the active ingredient involved in these improvements


TL/DR... bacon is a PED... ;)
 
Last edited:
estibador said:
Bacon is an interesting one. A lot of the warnings I've read previously have been to do with the nitrites/nitrates supposedly being unhealthy, but at uni we were recently assigned an interesting reading on the topic produced by the AIS. I can't seem to find it online, but the cliffs were:

- the biggest dietary source of nitrate is vegetables, providing about 80% of the average dietary intake, with the remainder coming mostly from processed meat and the water supply

- during the 60's health authorities began blaming nitrate for health issues, but these ideas have now largely been discredited. In contrast, there is now some evidence of health benefits

- Nitric oxide (NO) is an important chemical in our bodies, with its key function involving it acting as an acute vasodilator (helping regulate blood pressure). It was previously believed the synthesis of NO was reliant on a pathway involving the AA arginine, however we now know NO is broken down into nitrate which is then recycled via the nitrate-nitrite conversion pathway back into NO

- the discovery of this well-developed pathway supports the theory that dietary nitrate is useful rather than harmful

- Nitrate supplementation has been shown to enhance the effects of NO even in healthy people (ie reducing blood pressure)

- Recent studies have demonstrated chronic and acute intake of beetroot juice is associated with a consistent enhancement of exercise economy (reduced oxygen cost of exercise). These studies have used a true placebo of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice, confirming that the nitrate content is the active ingredient involved in these improvements


TL/DR... bacon is a PED... ;)
Click to expand...
What's the verdict on AAKG arginine as a supplement?
 
showdownhero said:
What's the verdict on AAKG arginine as a supplement?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked beyond our reading materials for any recent research, but according to the lit review we were given it's theorized to be ergogenic because of the previously mentioned link to NO synthesis. The theory being that NO as a potent vasodilator may benefit blood flow and therefore exercise capacity due to increased substrate utilization and metabolite removal.

Its been shown to increase the exercise capacity of patients with peripheral arterial disease or stable angina, but in healthy subjects the results have been mixed in both acute and chronic supplementation - with about a 50/50 split between studies showing a performance increase and those that don't. Any reported increase in performance doesn't appear to be due to its effect on NO as previously theorized, with later studies finding acute supplementation didn't boost NO production/plasma concentration.

It was also theorized to be one of three HGH stimulating AAs, but a review of the studies found that any dose great enough to induce significant HGH release was likely to cause gastrointestinal distress, and that no well-designed studies found any evidence that supplementation caused increases in muscle mass or strength to a greater extent than strength training alone.
 
estibador said:
I haven't looked beyond our reading materials for any recent research, but according to the lit review we were given it's theorized to be ergogenic because of the previously mentioned link to NO synthesis. The theory being that NO as a potent vasodilator may benefit blood flow and therefore exercise capacity due to increased substrate utilization and metabolite removal.

Its been shown to increase the exercise capacity of patients with peripheral arterial disease or stable angina, but in healthy subjects the results have been mixed in both acute and chronic supplementation - with about a 50/50 split between studies showing a performance increase and those that don't. Any reported increase in performance doesn't appear to be due to its effect on NO as previously theorized, with later studies finding acute supplementation didn't boost NO production/plasma concentration.

It was also theorized to be one of three HGH stimulating AAs, but a review of the studies found that any dose great enough to induce significant HGH release was likely to cause gastrointestinal distress, and that no well-designed studies found any evidence that supplementation caused increases in muscle mass or strength to a greater extent than strength training alone.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thorough reply :thumbsu:
 
Bazzar said:
And you have what research to back this up?
Click to expand...

There’s a lot research linking meat consumption to cancer cell growth and vegetables to lowering cell growth so eating lots of vege with a meat diet could counteract some side effects.
Problem is a lot people eat a lot of meat with a high portion being processed and lack vege intake which increases the risk of ill health later in life.
Moderate protein n lots of vege would/should lessen the risk of ill health later in life.
 
ablett said:
There’s a lot research linking meat consumption to cancer cell growth and vegetables to lowering cell growth so eating lots of vege with a meat diet could counteract some side effects.
Problem is a lot people eat a lot of meat with a high portion being processed and lack vege intake which increases the risk of ill health later in life.
Moderate protein n lots of vege would/should lessen the risk of ill health later in life.
Click to expand...
study we took 20 people 10 vegetarians and 10 meat eaters
we found a higher incidence of cancer cells in the meat eaters

conclusion meat is bad

we didn't bother to mention that the vegetarians were 10 years younger and 15kgs lighter and fit or that the meat eaters as well as being overweight and inactive at a lot of junk food and drank heavily


those kind of studies?
 
Gralin said:
study we took 20 people 10 vegetarians and 10 meat eaters
we found a higher incidence of cancer cells in the meat eaters

conclusion meat is bad

we didn't bother to mention that the vegetarians were 10 years younger and 15kgs lighter and fit or that the meat eaters as well as being overweight and inactive at a lot of junk food and drank heavily


those kind of studies?
Click to expand...

As most of us agree there is be a big descrepency on what they determine the meat to be. A burger from a fast food joint is far different to a piece of eye fillet.
 
Gralin said:
study we took 20 people 10 vegetarians and 10 meat eaters
we found a higher incidence of cancer cells in the meat eaters

conclusion meat is bad

we didn't bother to mention that the vegetarians were 10 years younger and 15kgs lighter and fit or that the meat eaters as well as being overweight and inactive at a lot of junk food and drank heavily


those kind of studies?
Click to expand...

Watch Fork n Knives
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Eating red meat, yes or no?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top