fuel for TNers: No need to cut down red and processed meat, study says

[BillA]

for how many thousands of years are we going to be told to defer to experts ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190930215122.htm

now picture this: everyone (less the greenies ?) wants to eat their 1/2 lb of meat
where does the meat come from ?
what breeds quickly enough to feed all these people ?

Soilent Green (one of the few movies I can recommend -> for young people)

edit: an excerpt
He added: "We focused exclusively on health outcomes, and did not consider animal welfare or environmental concerns when making our recommendations.
"We are however sympathetic to animal welfare and environmental concerns with a number of the guideline panel members having eliminated or reduced their personal red and processed meat intake for these reasons."

same as ever; beef in the manor hall, gruel for the peasants

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kantuckkeean]

Soylent Green is delicious with lots of hot sauce!!

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[xcopperstax]

for how many thousands of years are we going to be told to defer to experts ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190930215122.htm

now picture this: everyone (less the greenies ?) wants to eat their 1/2 lb of meat
where does the meat come from ?
what breeds quickly enough to feed all these people ?

Soilent Green (one of the few movies I can recommend -> for young people)

edit: an excerpt
[FONT=&]He added: "We focused exclusively on health outcomes, and did not consider animal welfare or environmental concerns when making our recommendations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"We are however sympathetic to animal welfare and environmental concerns with a number of the guideline panel members having eliminated or reduced their personal red and processed meat intake for these reasons."

same as ever; beef in the manor hall, gruel for the [/FONT]peasants

You know what I think? This article is completely bogus. The sad thing about it is that it gives a talking point to people who are reluctant to change their diets or lifestyles to improve their health. What it's going to boil down to the average person is that it's a green light to continue to eat unhealthy food and look to medication to save them when it all catches up to them. We are what we eat. Everyone has the right to eat themselves to death but it's too bad that people will die sooner than they have to because this article was the one message they wanted to hear.

 

[BillA]

You know what I think? This article is completely bogus. The sad thing about it is that it gives a talking point to people who are reluctant to change their diets or lifestyles to improve their health. What it's going to boil down to the average person is that it's a green light to continue to eat unhealthy food and look to medication to save them when it all catches up to them. We are what we eat. Everyone has the right to eat themselves to death but it's too bad that people will die sooner than they have to because this article was the one message they wanted to hear.

all are free to select what is on their plate (assuming they can afford it), apart from your judgemental prattle; yes, you did not like the article
why do you think it is bogus ?

this is a statistical analysis, you going to argue about which element of the methodology ?

 

[BillA]

xcs here is an article in support of your objections

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/

still carnivorous

 

[ToddsPoint]

If we weren't meant to eat meat we wouldn't have canine teeth. Now I won't feel guilty eating my Johnsonville Italian sausage cooked on the grill. Gary

 

[BillA]

susceptibility index (SI)

someone clever should come up with a susceptibility index (SI), or belief index (BI), or religiosity per se ?
to measure how influenced a person is by 'expert' guidance
(eg: from king/president, priest/educator, General/prison warden, parent/TV, etc.)

good citizens support the system and don't rock the boat and make the docile babies to send to the next war
others, to varying degrees, don't buy into the confidence game, but remain for the benefits
some opt out (like me, lol) but they will pay

back on topic, meat
meat, margarine, and skim milk are the greatest food frauds of my day

I have always eaten meat, Atkin's 100% ribeye diet was the very best (lost 30 lbs !).
I have never ever eaten margarine and refused also as a child, never permitted in my refrigerator as an adult.
I drink whole milk, period. If one wants water, drink water; if drinking milk for its nutrition then do so.
Or pay to have the milk solids reduced, processed, and sold again to you as plastic cheese ?

The point of the sword was 'low fat', promoted to be "more healthful" by our experts.
An absolute total fraud.

 

[xcopperstax]

xcs here is an article in support of your objections

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/

still carnivorous

Bill A I read the rebuttal article from Harvard thanks for posting it. I think they did a pretty good job of disproving the article / study. I don't have much to add or debate. The thing that is unfortunate is that the news of it has already been widely spread and the rebuttal doesn't sound as interesting or click worthy. One of the things that stood out to me is that they said on the panel there were only 2 "nutritional scientists" and the others where methodologists and some voted against their own findings. The whole thing was a study of other studies and they picked what they wanted and came up with their own conclusion despite a large amount of evidence to the contrary. This is the kind of dinner table conversation we will have to listen to from the uninformed meat eater for the next couple years regardless of the truth. I'll take a veggie burger hold the judgement.

 

[BillA]

xcs I did not get into the data, but found several points of interest.
"minor effect" and the "quality" of the data
quality as a statistical measurement is not in my interest, but was to the authors as related to several studies

what does "minor effect" mean as used by the authors ?
is that frequency of occurrence ? or degree of impairment ? or even both together ?

apart from that specific meaning; people have bodies inhabited by different organisms that react to specific foods differently
I have known people who were unable to digest beef but would strip a pig to its bones.

my suspicion is that the authors were addressing a very large part of the population for whom the consumption of meat and sodium nitrate does not present a health risk

how large might that group be ?
interesting question

edit: I am an uninformed meat eater.

 

[Rookster]

Sorry I missed your post earlier, I was eating a steak.

 

[xcopperstax]

xcs I did not get into the data, but found several points of interest.
"minor effect" and the "quality" of the data
quality as a statistical measurement is not in my interest, but was to the authors as related to several studies

what does "minor effect" mean as used by the authors ?
is that frequency of occurrence ? or degree of impairment ? or even both together ?

apart from that specific meaning; people have bodies inhabited by different organisms that react to specific foods differently
I have known people who were unable to digest beef but would strip a pig to its bones.

my suspicion is that the authors were addressing a very large part of the population for whom the consumption of meat and sodium nitrate does not present a health risk

how large might that group be ?
interesting question

edit: I am an uninformed meat eater.

Sorry Bill A I meant misinformed not uniformed! So the study has uncovered a new population of people who react differently to meat and processed meat? Maybe I don't know. We'll have to wait for a report on those people.

 

[BillA]

. . . . We'll have to wait for a report on those people.

indeed, that was the quoted article
how do people come to such different conclusions ? - select the data to be considered
nothing new

 

[RTR]

Beef "its whats for dinner"

 

[Gaspipe]

All of these studies are full of holes ; including those on global warming (opps it’s now climate change) which are manipulated and interpreted to advance agendas. Please pass the steak ; I like mine medium-rare.

 

[xcopperstax]

indeed, that was the quoted article
how do people come to such different conclusions ? - select the data to be considered
nothing new

BillA I'd appreciate it if you'd change your profile again to reflect my reversal/ correction of "uninformed." I know it's a lot to ask but I knew you'd see it my way. HaHa! I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but wasn't Atkins a victim of his own diet? He died of a stroke if I am correct?

 

[BillA]

BillA I'd appreciate it if you'd change your profile again to reflect my reversal/ correction of "uninformed." I know it's a lot to ask but I knew you'd see it my way. HaHa! I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but wasn't Atkins a victim of his own diet? He died of a stroke if I am correct?

yea, I will change - enjoying the chuckle for now

mercy; we all will die, of something
was causal effect demonstrated ? then so what ?

and for how many years did Dr. Adkins enjoy eating meat ?

 

[xcopperstax]

yea, I will change - enjoying the chuckle for now

mercy; we all will die, of something
was causal effect demonstrated ? then so what ?

and for how many years did Dr. Adkins enjoy eating meat ?

Thanks I will now be able to rest easy.

I think the cause of his stroke was due to the diet but that shouldn't get in the way of the millions to be made off the company that still lives. It kind of reminds me of the "breathairian" movement. The founder of it claimed to live off sunshine and pure energy and water. He was caught sneaking junk food into his diet. And it's hard to believe but a few followers died because the "diet" didn't provide them with enough to live. A fool and his life are soon parted. Bogus.

It's true we all die of something.

It's safe to say Atkins enjoyed all of the years.

 

[Madmox]

My question and initial reaction is and was, the statistical analysis is probably solid. The study was done with no outside money by an international group of researchers with some very reasonable Bonafides. The human body is spectacularly effective at converting almost any food into sugar for energy. The problem as I see it, genetics aside, is whether or not your nutritional sources balance out with your lifestyle. It’s reasonable to assume that you are going to end up with gummed up arteries if all you eat is large quantities of steak coupled with smoking and sitting the majority of your life.

The question to be answered is, all other variables fixed, is there a statistically significant difference in health between eating red meat vs white meat. This study contends that no, there may not be.

 

[Jason in Enid]

 

[DCMatt]

wasn't Atkins a victim of his own diet? He died of a stroke if I am correct?

Absolutely 100% false.

Atkins died of complications from brain surgery 9 days after slipping on ice and hitting his head on a NY sidewalk.

A later medical examiner's report suggested he had a history congestive heart failure and hypertension.

Because he was Jewish, no autopsy was performed (at his widow's request).

So I guess he died from climate change? Oh, wait! That's a different thread.