tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post839574714769973293..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: Is Meat Bad for You?David Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-56515358046419072412012-08-13T12:22:35.270-07:002012-08-13T12:22:35.270-07:00To the above poster,
If a non-meat eater is actin...To the above poster,<br /><br />If a non-meat eater is acting "self-righteous", then they must be an ethical vegetarian. Your response about our evolutionary history as hunters is as inappropriate as justifying slavery by looking to the history of civilization.Joey Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-25468400136446985132012-06-22T05:38:40.910-07:002012-06-22T05:38:40.910-07:00If a vegetarian or vegan ever gets self-righteous,...If a vegetarian or vegan ever gets self-righteous, smile real big, show your teeth, point to your canine teeth, and say, “They evolved and are used primarily for firmly holding food in order to tear it apart, and occasionally as weapons.” Humans, are the ultimate predators. We evolved to be carnivorous. We eat meat. Do you think early man would have survived without meat? They “could” have… W/E… like a caveman is going to forego hunting deer for meat in lieu of getting iron from scouring the earth for lentils and spinach. Let’s be realistic.enna. LAhttp://www.irondeficiencyguide.com/pernicious-anemia-vitamin-b12-deficiencynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-67838740432755425392012-04-10T09:42:15.147-07:002012-04-10T09:42:15.147-07:00This is a subject near and dear to me, as I went V...This is a subject near and dear to me, as I went Vegan for 1.5 years as a result of reading "The China Study" which advocates drastically reducing consumption of animal proteins to improve health.<br /><br />However, for about 3 months I became a sort of nutrition science junkie, reading about a combined 500 or so books on diet/nutrition, detailed blog posts, and pubmed.com summaries.<br /><br />I was finding more and more research on the benefits of omega-3 consumption, which predominately comes from fish and to a lesser degree organically grown meat and eggs. It seemed so many scientists advocated for either reducing meat / cholesterol / saturated fats, and yet others had pretty compelling evidence the other way. Half of what I read said one thing, the other half the other.<br /><br />So I finally decided to investigate the raw data personally. I got a hold of the raw data that the China Study was based on and spent about 4 hours with Excel and did my own crunching. What I found strongly supporter the argument that animal products and fish were healthy rather than unhealthy. Interestly, by far the biggest mortality single-variable correlation was consumption of white rice (very good) versus consumption of wheat (extremely bad). Personally I don't believe it is issue so much of white rice being healthy, but rather of wheat consumption being extremely unhealthy (slightly worse than smoking half a pack a day in terms of all-cause mortality).<br /><br />Conventional wisdom is that whole grains are good, but the research I did found this to be totally false. I cut out grains (except for occassionally cheating, I'm not perfect) and have experienced greater energy and weight loss.<br /><br />For anyone interested, I highly recommend the following reviews that take the position that red meet is good for you (or at least not bad for you):<br /><br /><br />http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1reersLlu<br /><br /><br />The following one is rather long and detailed; however I consider this analysis essential reading for anyone deeply interested:<br /><br />http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdfecontigerhttp://econtiger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-4894170533278504022012-04-04T05:57:06.244-07:002012-04-04T05:57:06.244-07:00Does the study distinguish meat preparation? It...Does the study distinguish meat preparation? It's well-known that charred meat contains carcinogens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-46628137474845409352012-03-29T12:44:14.532-07:002012-03-29T12:44:14.532-07:00You probably want to fix the typo "eating eat...You probably want to fix the typo "eating eat" in the first sentence.Kim Mosleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17658600791743162004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-30462811340657175072012-03-24T08:50:33.028-07:002012-03-24T08:50:33.028-07:00Didn't read the study but I'll predict tha...Didn't read the study but I'll predict that more folks choke to death on hot dogs than broccoli. Do I win?brauneyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01631024007225702984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-39150783778344099012012-03-23T23:12:44.062-07:002012-03-23T23:12:44.062-07:00Correlation. Causation. Toilet. FlushCorrelation. Causation. Toilet. FlushNightrunnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-28645131781770794132012-03-22T22:34:13.552-07:002012-03-22T22:34:13.552-07:00http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2012/03/2012-...http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2012/03/2012-red-meat-mortality-study-arch.htmljs290http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2012/03/2012-red-meat-mortality-study-arch.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-38593251981088436952012-03-22T05:50:01.702-07:002012-03-22T05:50:01.702-07:00August,
Gary Taubes critiquing epidemiology is oh...August,<br /><br />Gary Taubes critiquing epidemiology is oh so rich.<br /><br />I'm reading your link and I can't stop laughing.joeftanseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09398623775396527254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-70798327284475397582012-03-21T18:55:10.260-07:002012-03-21T18:55:10.260-07:00See also Denise Minger's "Will Eating Red...See also Denise Minger's "Will Eating Red Meat Kill You?":<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1po3rA7tk" rel="nofollow">http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1po3rA7tk</a>Dave Lullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053227199985293516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-39938958196503620852012-03-21T17:59:58.449-07:002012-03-21T17:59:58.449-07:00Epidemiology vs Controlled studies.Epidemiology vs Controlled studies.joeftanseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-33506538313071251672012-03-21T10:51:52.936-07:002012-03-21T10:51:52.936-07:00I don't know if avoiding red meat really makes...I don't know if avoiding red meat really makes you live longer, but it will make your life seem longer.mobilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-47235535672909775032012-03-21T09:18:50.663-07:002012-03-21T09:18:50.663-07:00Funny, March must be the month for reporting on sh...Funny, March must be the month for reporting on shoddy science:<br /><br />http://www.rknibbe.com/Wordpress/?p=639RKNhttp://www.rknibbe.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-85991757012420073962012-03-21T07:24:46.764-07:002012-03-21T07:24:46.764-07:00This is Taubes take on the study. Robb Wolf addre...This is <a href="http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/" rel="nofollow">Taubes take on the study</a>. Robb Wolf addressed it recently too, and said what I think-<br /><a href="http://www.robbwolf.com/2012/03/20/harvard-meat-study-episode-124/" rel="nofollow">this isn't science</a>. We've got some pretty expensive studies that need doing just to resolve the whole insulin debate that has been going on for my entire lifetime. The 'researchers' should be fired for this nonsense. Waste of money. The data isn't even accurate, much less the conclusions.Augusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08758314961163692341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-69917257370179464442012-03-21T06:42:09.504-07:002012-03-21T06:42:09.504-07:00> always or almost always fail to be supported ...> always or almost always fail to be supported by followup studies.<br /><br />Evidence that we are chasing statistical "noise" in the data. Correlation without a convincing, underlying, causal theory is a good way to ask questions - a bad way to get answers.<br /><br />Bill Drissel<br />Grand Prairie, TXBill Drisselnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-5380680389309689752012-03-20T20:15:14.815-07:002012-03-20T20:15:14.815-07:00The basic problem with the study is that the group...The basic problem with the study is that the groups of people who ate a lot of meat versus the groups that ate little to no meat differed in many ways: such as bmi, activity level, and other dietary differences. The authors of the study did try to account for all of these differences and control for them using statistical techniques, but such techniques are, inevitably, estimations with unknown margins of error. The question is whether the increased mortality rate associated with meat-eating is due to the meat-eating or some other confounding factor that they either didn't take into account or didn't accurately control for. Not to mention that the data in the study was self-reported, which leads to further possibilities of error.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609635136422662376noreply@blogger.com