Media Bias: To Eat Red Meat or Not

The Media hasn't missed a beat on this new study showing a correlation between red meat consumption and increased mortality.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0c464965ff8.jpg[/atsimg]

Daily Red Meat Raises Chances Of Dying Early

Eating Red And Processed Meat Associated With Increased Risk Of Death

Eating Red Meat May Boost Death Risk

Eating Red Meat Linked to Early Death, Study Finds

Granted, the study was quite large, but it's still an observational/epidemiological study. A study which should only be used to form a hypothesis, not pin-point causality.

That aside, I bet you didn't notice the other studies that were released at the exact same time this one was. In case you didn't, due to the press coverage, or lack thereof.....

Here's one:

Conclusion: On the basis of the results of this quantitative assessment, the available epidemiologic evidence does not appear to support an independent association between animal fat intake or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer

Dr. Michael Eades was quick to jump on this. He actually purchased the full article and inside was this:

The association between total dietary fat, including fat constituents such as saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, and cholesterol, and risk of colorectal cancer has been evaluated in numerous epidemiologic [observational] studies. Results from these analytic investigations have generally been mixed. Whereas some studies have reported positive associations, several studies have observed null and inverse associations. In a pooled analysis of data from 13 case-controlled studies, risk of colorectal cancer was found to increase significantly with increasing categories of total daily energy intake. In the same analysis, and after adjustment for total energy intake, the authors observed no evidence of an energy-independent effect of total dietary fat or specific fat components other than cholesterol. In fact, many of the associations among men and women were in the inverse direction [i.e., more animal fat equals greater longevity].

It goes on to talk about where fat and red meat earned this reputation. It can be traced back starting in the 1960's and brought on by Ancel Keys and his bogus studies. www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Here's two:

Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study is low compared with national rates. Within the study, mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters, but the study is not large enough to exclude small or moderate differences for specific causes of death, and more research on this topic is required.

Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford)

Have a look at Dr. Eades Blog Post here.

If you ask the man on the street (who has been fed a load of bunkum over the years by the press) if vegetarians or non-vegetarians are healthier and live longer, you will almost assuredly be told that vegetarians are the healthiest. Most people believe this, but they just don’t want to make the sacrifice to follow the vegetarian lifestyle. They are willing to give up a couple of years of life to not have to live on a steady diet of beans, tofu, vegetables, fruits and dry bread. You would think that if a study came out from a prestigious institution (Oxford) published in a top-line scientific journal showing that vegetarians don’t live any longer than non-vegetarians and actually have a higher incidence of some particularly nasty cancers (but slightly lower rates of death from heart disease) it would be newsworthy. But the press has totally ignored this study just like they did the last one.

I'm not sure about you guys but this just pisses me off. People are being lied to on a massive scale and they're too ignorant to know better. Dr. Eades sums it up for me...

The point of this post is that you shouldn’t get wound up about a study that gets reported throughout the media because there are more than likely other studies that are just as well done and just as important showing exactly the opposite findings that the press chooses to ignore. You’re not seeing the science as it is, you’re seeing the science as the press wants you to see it, which, typically, is the way that confirms the bias of members of the press.

As a journalist friend of ours once remarked: what is news? News is whatever the reporter decides it is. In my opinion, they decided wrongly in this case.

-Dev

As I say with alot of things, people managed to survive some 6,000 years and still ate red meat (im assuming).

If you want to be really conspiracists like on this, if they convince masses of people to stop taking red meat, which is widely known for its protein not death! Then you can easier manipulate a mind of a person who is protein deprived.... you know were you've seen this before.

I am man, I eat meat, I am happy.

Like my favorite commercial.

"GO MEAT"

The media jumped on a sensationalist medical report, yes. Is that shocking to you?

I fail to see any great notability here. The beef industry is absolutely massive, particularly in the United States. To suggest that measly news reports will be allowed to undermine that would be terrifically foolish. Billions are banking on that industry's continuation.

And further, vegetarianism may be lauded as a healthy choice on occasion, but it's hardly an accepted lifestyle within the average American psyche. I still have to explain myself anytime I refuse meat, and submit myself to a barrage of whys and hows. Red meat has been and will continue to be a traditional, integral part of the human diet.

Three cheers, a star, and a flag for you.

I've been trying to convince people for years that trans fats, processed vegetable oils, margarine, sugar, and white flour as well as chemical additives and preservatives are the real enemy, not fat or meat, but no one listens to me.

The Lipid Hypothesis is a LIE. Eating cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol. And worse, for those taking a dangerous statin on the advice of their doctor, increased serum cholesterol doesn't increase the risk of mortality.

Butter, coconut oil, olive oil, and even lard are healthier than canola oil, margarine, and other processed fats and oils. The heat and pressure of the processing causes them to go rancid, and they must then be bleached, deodorized, dyed, and artificially flavored to make them palatable. You know what flies eat, right? But flies won't eat margarine. They know it's not food. (They like butter, though).

If you want to be healthy, go back to the kind of diet your grandparents and great-grandparents ate, including red meat, and get a little more exercise.

It's the cookies and cakes and white bread and donuts and processed, pre-packaged "convenience" foods which are making us sick, not meat.

And that's the real reason the vegetarian diet appears to some to be healthier than the average American diet - they tend to eat high fiber whole grains and less sweets and processed foods because so many pre-packaged snack foods contain animal products. What irony - they give up eating meat to be healthier, and it's the other things they give up that actually make the difference. If you ate like a vegetarian and added small portions of red meat to your diet, you'd be healthier than the vegetarian!

I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat grass.

Originally posted by paperplanes
The media jumped on a sensationalist medical report, yes. Is that shocking to you?

It's not shocking. A feeling of anger comes to mind, not shock.

I fail to see any great notability here. The beef industry is absolutely massive, particularly in the United States. To suggest that measly news reports will be allowed to undermine that would be terrifically foolish. Billions are banking on that industry's continuation.

I didn't even mention the beef industry. What is happening, is people are hearing these studies from reputable mainstream news outlets. These people are assuming that these studies are proving causaility. Can you not see how this is very misleading? That, to me, is notable.

-Dev

I eat red meat, in fact I trust Beef a lot more than Chicken, even after the BSE scare. In fact I just had a Ribeye Steak of Longhorn top quality british beef this evening, and I feel GOOD!

I eat much less meat now than I used too but only really good quality well raised and properly butchered animals, its more expensive but as I'm eating far less I think its a much better diet and the same on my wallet.

Buy from your local butcher not the big chains, it's supporting local tradepeople and you'll eat like a king.

Cheap cuts are Hanger, Skirt and you can't beat a good oxtail stew!

reply to post by smokehouseslim


That is a classic, classic line.

I remember reading an article in New Scientist about 6 or 7 years ago about one theory on why Humans have evolved to be intelligent and susceptable to prion diseases like CJD, it revolved around us eating the brains of dead animals on the plains of africa as we are the only creatures who could break open the skulls and get to the remains.

Food for thought, eating meat made us clever!

Originally posted by paperplanes
The media jumped on a sensationalist medical report, yes. Is that shocking to you?

I fail to see any great notability here. The beef industry is absolutely massive, particularly in the United States. To suggest that measly news reports will be allowed to undermine that would be terrifically foolish. Billions are banking on that industry's continuation.

That's true. The meat industry isn't going anywhere. The fact that the media did a great job grabbing people's attention is what they do best.

The fact remains that there are animal proteins and animal rendered fats which we cannot digest. As much as we want to think "what goes in comes right out", that's not the case. These can putrefy and remain for some time.

Now, it's very important to put into context the difference between eating meat, not eating meat, and "dying early".

Some vegetarians are vegetarians because of the animals. They don't want to partake in the slaughter of these innocent lives. That's fine but are they healthier as a result?

Not whatsoever. A non-health conscience vegetarian that prides themselves on not eating meat all the while grabbing any "meatless" snack they can get their hands on is certainly no further ahead. On the contrary they could be lacking nutrients the meat would provide them considering they aren't concerned about anything food related but the meatless tag.

A diet of quick, processed, packaged "convenience" foods will be the demise of anyone.

A meat eater conciseness of processed and fake foods can certainly live a long healthy life.

You take any long living, healthy meat eating family from the 1940's and put them here. Let them continue to eat their same meat but substitute the rest for processed foods. Their health will fade and their longevity will vanish.

This story is nothing more then a distracter from real health food issues.

Just because it's edible doesn't mean we should eat it.








[edit on 26-3-2009 by StrangeBrew]

People just are not meant to eat read meat in teh quantities they do.

When you want answers, look at cavemen. It was hard to catch meat. What you did catch had to last. It was nibbled on throughout the year. It would of been eaten sparingly and supplemented with a lot of veggies, fruite, beans, and nuts.

So we are meant to eat meat, just not 8oz of it three or more times a day. Maybe once a day. If that.

I think what people have to keep in mind that there is nothing natural about a cow. Especially after it has been injected and hormoned till it basically resembles an animal. It is fed a diet we could barely conceive of, much less anything natural.

It is not like the meat we should be eating, lean gamey meat like buffalo or deer.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
When you want answers, look at cavemen. It was hard to catch meat. What you did catch had to last. It was nibbled on throughout the year. It would of been eaten sparingly and supplemented with a lot of veggies, fruite, beans, and nuts.

We're not talking about the Flinstones here. How, exactly, does one keep a partially eaten animal from rotting, especially in a cave with no Fridge??? "Cavemen" more than likely ate all of their food before it spoiled. Insulin would then store the excess nutrients for later use. Insulin's primary job is to store those excess nutrients that aren't used by the body.

Red meat, thanks to bogus studies and trigger happy journalists, has now been blamed for nearly every type of chronic disease that can be controlled by diet. The saturated fats clog the arteries, the protein causes osteoperosis and the hormones released by an animal in distress are damaging to our bodies as well. I call BS.

How many warthogs release those same hormones as they're being strangled to death by a lion? Come on....

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by nixie_nox
When you want answers, look at cavemen. It was hard to catch meat. What you did catch had to last. It was nibbled on throughout the year. It would of been eaten sparingly and supplemented with a lot of veggies, fruite, beans, and nuts.

We're not talking about the Flinstones here. How, exactly, does one keep a partially eaten animal from rotting, especially in a cave with no Fridge??? "Cavemen" more than likely ate all of their food before it spoiled. Insulin would then store the excess nutrients for later use. Insulin's primary job is to store those excess nutrients that aren't used by the body.

Bury it in the permafrost, in the snow, or made it into jerky. I wasn't being specific about cavemen, but our ancestors.

Red meat, thanks to bogus studies and trigger happy journalists, has now been blamed for nearly every type of chronic disease that can be controlled by diet. The saturated fats clog the arteries, the protein causes osteoperosis and the hormones released by an animal in distress are damaging to our bodies as well. I call BS.

AGain, there is nothing natural about red meat. Cows are bred, mutated domestic animals. There is nothing that resembles a cow in nature. So the meat is fattier and more mutated then what man is designed to eat.

How many warthogs release those same hormones as they're being strangled to death by a lion? Come on....

alright you need a small biology lesson.
Humans have over 50 hormones that regulate the body. I highly doubt that a warthog is releasing progesterone.

farmers are not pumping cows with cortisol and adrenaline.

Here a dairy cow has so many hormones pumped into her, that her udder is an un-natural large size. Poor thing doesn't look happy either. She can barely stand.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1501f1a9b081.jpg[/atsimg]

Cows naturally make about 16 pounds of milk a day. But with injections, are forced to provide up to 50 pounds of milk a day.

Beef is injected with over 6 growth hormones. Dairy has 7.
Three of these are synthetic.
Some are sex hormones.

Most american beef is not considered safe in Europe. Only a few companies can meet the standards.








[edit on 26-3-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Bury it in the permafrost, in the snow, or made it into jerky. I wasn't being specific about cavemen, but our ancestors.

So location is important, right? I'd rather not dive too far into that but like I said, Insulin, a hormone used to store excess nutrients, allows the body to consume excessive amounts of energy without wasting it, but storing it as fat instead. No biology lesson needed, thanks!

AGain, there is nothing natural about red meat. Cows are bred, mutated domestic animals. There is nothing that resembles a cow in nature. So the meat is fattier and more mutated then what man is designed to eat.

You're saying all red meat comes from cows? I think you're forgetting a few furry friends....

alright you need a small biology lesson.
Humans have over 50 hormones that regulate the body. I highly doubt that a warthog is releasing progesterone.

True. Cortisol, on the other hand, is, which was the emphasis of my point. I'm sure you know that is an argument that floats around in the vege world.

farmers are not pumping cows with cortisol and adrenaline.

here a dairy cow has so many hormones pumped into her, that her udder is an un-natural large size. Poor thing doesn't look happy either. She can barely stand.

And some farmers aren't injecting their livestock with anything. Where are you going with this? Poor cow, I feel bad for her but how many cows do you really think ther are that look like that?

Cows naturally make about 16 pounds of milk a day. But with injections, are forced to provide up to 50 pounds of milk a day.

Beef is injected with over 6 growth hormones. Dairy has 7.
Three of these are synthetic.
Some are sex hormones.

Most american beef is not considered safe in Europe. Only a few companies can meet the standards.

I don't disagree with the brits but we're talking about red meat here.

This is another problem I have with the study in question. There is no distinction as to what kind of red meat was consumed.


-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd



The beef industry lies at the heart of the red meat issue. A mammoth producer of the most popular commodity within a set cannot be ignored; your failure to mention it is of no consequence.

I'm not disputing the quality of the reports or the headlines, I am only arguing that it deserves far less attention than you're giving. Most viewers do not give heed to these warnings and continue munching their burgers and steaks every day. Reporters can talk about vegetarianism 'til they're blue in the face, but most individuals will not be swayed. Tradition and taste are not easily overcome.

If you think that cow is an aberrance, I suggest you visit a typical factory farm. The conditions are atrocious, and that is indeed where the bulk of the meat products come from in the United States. I wouldn't touch a thing that came from one of those cesspools.

Originally posted by paperplanes
The beef industry lies at the heart of the red meat issue. A mammoth producer of the most popular commodity within a set cannot be ignored; your failure to mention it is of no consequence.

Considering that, in this situation, the beef industry is irrelavent, I think we can ignore the giant for now. We're not discussing a study that supports "Big Beef" so please explain to me how this is an issue?

Most viewers do not give heed to these warnings and continue munching their burgers and steaks every day. Reporters can talk about vegetarianism 'til they're blue in the face, but most individuals will not be swayed. Tradition and taste are not easily overcome.

Most individuals are unable to attain, interpret and just flat out understand any of the information gathered from any medical study. Most individuals rely on reporters, and the media in general, to deliver this information in laymans terms and in an unbiased format so they can make an informed decision on the subject. Unfortunately, as you can see from this thread, unbiased is hardly what we get.

Most of these reporters don't even understand what an observational study is. As I've said, causality is NOT the goal of an observational study. They are performed to simply form a hypothesis, at which point a controlled study should then by considered to determine causality.

This type of biased reporting, combined with bogus studies, is exactly what led to saturated fats and cholesterol being labled as unhealthy and "artery clogging" nutrients. THat, in turn, has led to red meat studies which are performed with a hypothesis in mind already: "Red Meat Causes Colorectal Cancer". And here we are now.

If you think that cow is an aberrance, I suggest you visit a typical factory farm. The conditions are atrocious, and that is indeed where the bulk of the meat products come from in the United States. I wouldn't touch a thing that came from one of those cesspools.

I seriously doubt you've been to a "typical" factory farm. Generally speaking, they are very orderly and humane. Temple Grandin's slaughterhouse design has been adopted by most, world wide.

Of course, there are exceptions. If you looked hard enough you could find a "cesspool" of a slaughterhouse and then you could post pictures and talk about how cruel it is to do this to animals. These animals are being treated much better than they would in the wild, especially when you consider the vast difference in the way these animals die in the wild compared to the slaughterhouse.

I'm done focusing on this, we're getting off topic. For the second time, why are we focusing solely on beef? Do you understand that beef is not the only red meat? I know you do so lets stop focusing on how farmers treat their cattle and slaughterhouses treat their meat, and lets start focusing on the actual topic here. Media Bias regarding medical studies that are being or are not being reported and the importance of understanding what observational studies constitute.

-Dev

I dont know the medical effects of eating red meat and if it is good for you or not...

what I do know is that I recently converted to vegetarianism... and since then I feel one million times better. I feel energetic, healthy, happy.. I have a better attitude. I end up cooking at home much more now rather then going out and eating.. so I cook much healthier for myself and in turn have adapted a much healthier lifestyle in all aspects of my life.

I feel that red meat is unnecessary and is too hard for the body to digest which creates bloating and gross feelings.


not to mention all those human growth hormones and who knows what else they feed to those cows.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by calihan_12]

The beef industry's power is absolutely relevant in any discussion of the effect an attack against red meat (e.g., your linked reports) can have on the human psyche. I have singled out beef in particular due to the fact that it constitutes the highest percentage of red meat output.

The thrust of your argument is that the media bias supported by these reports poses a threat of swaying general opinion of red meat consumption. My argument is that the leviathan of the meat-producing industry, both in the United States and abroad, is impenetrable by the medical reports that periodically bubble to the surface of mainstream news. The same reporter who harps on about the danger of eating these products will inevitably go home a few hours later to consume a nice, juicy slab of red meat. The same can be said for the vast majority of the viewers of said reports. I'm arguing that your ire is an unnecessary expenditure of energy. Granted, you are entitled to spend your energy any way you please--bringing it to your attention is simply a kind gesture from a fellow ATS member.

As for the cow and general animal welfare, that isn't at all what I was discussing. I was, and am, looking at it from a purely selfish standpoint for the purpose of our discussion--the absolutely vile conditions that necessarily exist when animals are packed like sardines (this is done, we are told, to ensure the safety of the animals...avert your eyes from the profit of the corporation ), the bodily waste that pours out of these factories and contaminates surrounding areas, often to the detriment of any nearby residents (this is well-documented), and the cocktail of hormones and antibiotics that these animals are traditionally pumped full of, traces of which find their way into your body. Again, this is standard practice, recommended for the optimum production of the animals. I have indeed visited a few top-rate (so say the industry goons) factories, and found the conditions to be....distasteful. I repeat, I certainly wouldn't touch anything that came out of those factories.

[edit on 27/3/09 by paperplanes]

I am a meat eater, but i will readily admit, that when restricting myself to veggies, or fasting from meat for a while, i do have much more energy, clarity of thought, and regulation of mood. However, if meat is completely removed from the diet, well then you are suffering from nutritional deficiencies, as all fatty acids (vitamins a, d, e, and b12) are stored in animal fats, and very few of them are in any concentration in veggies. And supplementation is not always a great idea, as the majority of vitamin supplements out there are synthetic, which are not the same as whole food vitamins at all.

As to the debate raging above about the beef industry....yes, in america the vast majority of "red meat" consumed is beef, from the beef industry, and regardless of how the cows are treated, all of them are injected with massive amounts of antibiotics and hormones, and further, the majority of them are fed grains and corn which are not their natural food and alter the chemistry as well. None of this is good for our consumption, and if you want to debate the destructive force of american industry produced food vs other methods, please just compare the vast growth of cancers, allergies, and diseases in the US vs those in other countries where traditional and sustainable farming practices are used.

Originally posted by calihan_12
what I do know is that I recently converted to vegetarianism... and since then I feel one million times better. I feel energetic, healthy, happy.. I have a better attitude. I end up cooking at home much more now rather then going out and eating.. so I cook much healthier for myself and in turn have adapted a much healthier lifestyle in all aspects of my life.
[edit on 27-3-2009 by calihan_12]

Meat usually takes 24-48 hrs to digest and make its way through the GI tract, just like most other foods. Proteins, on the other hand, are harder to break down than any other macronutrient and, as we all know, red meat is usually full of protein.

There are drawbacks to both lifestyles, vegetarian and omnivorous, and both can be damaging to one's health if not followed correctly. Just as most american omnivores are consuming an unhealthy diet, vegetarians fall in the very same category.

Back to the topic at hand. I forgot to mention this in my original post. What side dish are you eating when you eat a steak? What is wrapped around your burger? Usually, the consumption of red meat is accompanied by a swarm of carbohydrates. A couple of effects caused by such a combination are noteworthy:

-Comsuming saturated fat(red meat) will increase total cholesterol due to the increase of HDL. Total cholesterol truely means nothing. Now, add a massive carb load, introduce potato, and we've got a different story. In this case, HDL and LDL are increased and LDL particle size decreases. A recipe for artherosclerosis and increased mortality.

-Consuming protein(red meat) and saturated fat(red meat) is perfectly fine. Combining a carbohydrate(potato) is not a good idea. The carbs and proteins cause a spike in blood glucose which has to be countered by an insulin spike. The only way to lower blood sugar is to store it or burn it. Since you're eating, and not working out, you'll be storing it as saturated fat. Eating like this daily will lead to hyperinsulinemia and Type2 Diabetes.

Eating red meat may cause increased mortality but it may be correlated with Insulin, or carbohydrates. Then you have to ask, which one is the true culprit?

It's easy to draw conclusions from these types of studies, however, they should be used as a compass.

Dog Tail-Chasing Linked to High Cholesterol

Using the same logic used in the red meat study, one could come to the conclusion that feeding a dog red meat can eventually kill it due to hypercholesterolemia, which "obviously" causes heart disease.

Shaving, Coronary Heart Disease, and Stroke

Does shaving infrequently cause Heart Disease and Stroke?

Like I said, it's this same logic that has turned Dietary Cholesterol and Saturated Fat into Mortal enemies of anyone who "thinks" they're health conscious.

-Dev