It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media Bias: To Eat Red Meat or Not

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
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.



That isn't true whatsoever. In no way shape or form are there nutrients we require that can only be found in certain animal meats and fats. This is a very important fact. Indeed, a narrow diet of common veggies is not enough to provide the complete list of nutrients we require however; an extremely wide range of food choices exist to vegetarians.

Every other legume aside, the unlimited variety of beans available to us is more then enough to fulfill our entire protein requirements. Flax oil and other oils derived from nuts are literally the most healthy fats available and provide EVERYTHING we require in that department.

In no way should supplements be turned to as the only answer to a lack of food options. The options are there, the quantities are right for us, we just need to become aware of all of our choices.




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


You jumped on it before I could.....

The body converts beta-cerotene into Vitamin A. Beta cerotene comes from fruits and vegetables.
So much for that idea.

Also, vitamins are micronutrients, they aren't fatty acids. Vitamin A,D and E are actually Fat-Soluble Vitamins. They're primarily stored in fatty tissue or the liver.

As far as B12 goes, CoQ10 is more important for intracelluar energy production. CoQ10 is found in fish and meat. New studies are showing just how important this Coenzyme really is.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Not true, you wont get nearly the same concentrations from plants as you do from animals....and while coq 10 might be more important than B, that doesnt mean you dont need B. At any rate, my ex fiancee was a student at the Southwest college for naturopathic medicine, and most of the students there began their education there as strict vegans and vegetarians. However, after the students began their first few nutrition courses, they all, and i mean ALL began supplementing their diets with some fish or eggs and such. These people had been hardcore but once they were educated on the massive benefits to health of having a healthy rounded diet, they all understood that it was reasonable to include what they had foregone before.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Anything in over abundance is bad for you.

There is nothing wrong with eating red meats as long as you don't eat a huge portion everyday. If a person who works at a computer all day eats a 12oz steak every night will not be as healthy as the person who works as a laborer on a construction site who eats the same thing.

I don't think the question should be is red meat bad for you. It should be are you eating a portion that is conductive to your lifestyle?

Bodybuilders eat massive amounts of red meat and drink protein shakes everyday. But their lifestyle calls for it.

If I ate as much as they did I would be at a serious health risk.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Just so you know, Vitamin B12 is not easily absorbed through the digestive system. It requires large amounts taken oraly to do much at all. Intravaneous is a different story.

I brought up CoQ10 because without it Vitamin B12 really doesn't matter, or so says the most up-to-date research. Fish and meat are the best sources of CoQ10.

reply to post by jd140
 


You're simply talking about eating large proportions of any food. Bodybuilders eat red meat for it's high protein, high fat and zero carb profile.

Media bias, anybody?

-Dev



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
"Eco-Atkins" diet lowers heart risks: study


CHICAGO (Reuters) - A vegetarian version of the Atkins low-carb diet may help people lose weight and lower levels of bad cholesterol in the blood, Canadian researchers said on Monday.

A small, month-long study of the so-called Eco-Atkins diet, which stresses plant proteins, worked better than a high-carb diet at reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein or LDL, which raises the risks of heart attacks and strokes.

snip

The traditional Atkins low-carb diet, in which people cut out carbohydrates and eat more meat, has been shown to help lower blood fats known as triglycerides and raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or HDL, the "good" cholesterol, but it also tends to raise bad cholesterol levels.


The actual study can be found here: archinte.ama-assn.org...

Here we go again. Two problems:

The researchers must not have taken into account the fact that a great number of people-and by great I mean a significant chunch-are gluten intolerant and allergic to soy.

The other, this whole study is based on the premise that LDL in the blood is dangerous and leads to CHD. Low-Carb dieters consistenly produce nearly perfect blood profiles, yet because LDL staying high on the diet, it's trashed. It's just tossed out the window despite the lack of evidence to support the claim that high LDL is a marker for Coronary Heart Disease.

---LDL particle size matters, not quantity. Eating a red meat with less carbs does improve LDL particle size.

---The ratio of HDL to triglycerides also matters. Eating red meat improves this ratio as well.

-Dev

[edit on 12-6-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd] extra DIV



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this one...

Half of these comments sound like they're justifying their overindulgence in meat products. Humans can eat anything, as long as it's in moderation. Please understand that moderation means a portion as defined by the FDA (the size of a pack of playing cards).

Our society has gotten out of control. We spend tons of money and grains to feed our cattle for slaughter. The proportion of lbs of grain to lbs of meat is greatly disproportionate. Most societies treat meat as a treat for special occasions. Not to be consumed at every meal. This is also true for societies in ages past.

If we look at the Australopithecus as a theoretical model for 'true' natural human diet, we find they consume nearly 80-90% plants, nuts, berries, fruits, etc. The rest is small rodents and insects. Imagine for a moment, that fire was never invented... meat doesn't sound very appetizing. When we walk past a rotting pile of roadkill, most people would not think to dig in. True carnivores would.

We certainly CAN eat as much meat as we want... but we really aren't physically equip for the shear quantity most people eat. We are most definitely omnivores, but not to the level that you are trying to justify us at.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I forgot to also mention that my wife is a registered dietetic technician. So I'm coming from a knowledgeable household where moderately portioned and balanced food is the standard. We're healthy, fit, and feel great! (besides the fact that I work until 3:20am)


It only takes a little self-control. I always tell myself, "I'm only cheating myself when I go to the kitchen for a snack". Nobody cares if you have a whole row of oreos instead of two... but those calories don't disappear.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Hey there, thanks for the comments.

Determining Australopithecus' diet is a much more difficult task than you give credit. Most evidence is dug up from fossils, or lack thereof. Anthropologists can indeed determine how well nurished a "subject" was based on the bone structure, but determining it's complete diet is not so easy.

With that said, research has suggested that Australopithecus was indeed an omnivore.

Even trying to understand a Paleolithic diet is a guess, at best. But at least we have cave paintings that add a hint of suggestion as to what they did eat. Those paintings consisted of animals.

Carbon 13 Isotope studies have also suggested that these ancient men either grazed or consumed animals that grazed. This is based on bone samples.

Experts also agree that paleolithic man drove many large wild game to extinction, or close to.


Edit to add:

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest consuming grass fed organic red meat is detrimental to human health.

Concerining moderation, it is of no concern if you're eating the right foods. Satiety is completely achieved when eating a high fat/protein diet.

-Dev



[edit on 13-6-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Actually, the study I read suggested that our ancestor would have had a similar diet to that of modern primates, with some minor variation.

I agree that consuming grass fed organic red meat is not unhealthy. However, moderation is very important. If you don't, like most Americans, work out often, you're just consuming too many calories to burn off. You must have a nutritionally balanced diet, no matter where you get it.

[edit on 6.13.2009 by Avarus]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I absolutely love red meat, and if I go without the protein and iron derived from meats I do not feel well at all. All things in moderation, am i right? I've never bought into the vegetarianism hype, as having to take supplements to make up for the nutrients that you're not getting just doesn't seem very healthy to me.

It's a bit of a moot discussion anyways, seeing as how nearly ALL of the food that we consume on a daily basis is pumped full of or doused in government-mandated chemicals that are harmful to us.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Notice foods make the rounds as far as what tptb deem "bad" for you according to the economy.
The economy is bad right now and food costs are soaring, so rather than have you notice that you can't afford to buy the staples that sustain you, and get pissed about it. They go on a campaign telling you the expensive stuff is bad for you anyway, so that you don't get angry that you aren't able to feed your children properly. Remember last recession? Milk, cheese and red meats were going to kill you. They told you that chicken and pork were good, because you could afford them not because they were good for you.

Soon they'll be telling the poor that it's ok if they can't afford to shop at the grocers because the weeds in their yards are just as good as the veggies at the store - which is probably true, but you get my drift.

Star and flag for OP btw



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
It's kind of true, at least for me, that red meat is necessary. Without red meat I become sick and I get protein deficiencies. But I generally don't weigh a lot and that's just what happens with me. But when I eat too much meat of any kind, my stomach gets really messed up because usually I go at least 4 days without meat and then eat some. I try to eat red meat about once or twice a week, because any less makes me feel weak and tired, and more makes me feel sick, too.

But that's just my experience.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Actually, the study I read suggested that our ancestor would have had a similar diet to that of modern primates, with some minor variation.


So you're making a decision based on one study? What type of study was it? What "ancestor," from what time period, from what region was studied?

I don't doubt that ancient man, restricted by geographical location, relied on a diet that mirrors today's primates; however, to assume that all of our ancestors, in all locations ate the same thing is quite a stretch.


moderation is very important. If you don't, like most Americans, work out often, you're just consuming too many calories to burn off. You must have a nutritionally balanced diet, no matter where you get it.


I understand that the your ideas are based on what your wife learned in school. And I respect that. However, much of what she has been taught is simply not true. For a couple reasons:

Calorie inatke vs. Calorie expenditure: According to the ADA (American Dietetic Association), if one were sedentary and he consumes any amount of calories(whithout regard to calorie type) more than his RMR(resting/basal metabolic rate), he will inevitably gain weight. Likewise, if one were sedentary and he consumes any amount of calories less than his RMR, he will inevitably lose weight.

This sounds great in theory but this is not what we observe in practice. Unless one were to maintain a caloric defecit/surplus that is upwards of 500 calories from "balance" then weight change is usually stable. This happens because when the body is starved the metabolism slows down to compensate, and vice versa, when the body is overfed it speeds up the metabolism to compensate.

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Now, while the above is usually true calorie intake/expenditure, a greater emphasis should be placed on "types" of calories. According to the ADA, calorie type has little or no influence on energy balance. A calorie is simply a calorie, hence all emphasis being wrongly placed on calories. Studies have repeatedly shown that a person on a low-carb, high-fat, high-protein diet will not overeat. Why? Fat and protein increases satiety.

If that doesn't make sense, have a look at the many studies on lowcarb vs lowfat diets. You'll notice that the lowcarbers aren't restricted to a certain amount of calories but are told to eat whenever they feel like it, the lowfat'ers. however are restricted, yet the lowcarbers always demonstrate better results across the spectrum(weight loss, lipid profiles, insulin sensitivity, etc.). Many of those same studies show low carbers eating more food but losing less weight. Eat the right foods and you don't have to worry about moderation.

A high carb diet does the opposite of the above, including weight gain, bad lipid profiles and insulin resistance.

Just a few sources:
Decreased metabolism w/ restricted calorie diet
Satiety and length of fullness in Low-Carbers
Study on Energy Balance
Protein and satiety
[www.nutritionandmetabolism.com...]Low Carb works, Sans exercise[/url]

Enjoy,

-Dev



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


You're absolutely right. Go ahead and eat as much of whatever you want.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Wow, what a response. You obviously didn't take the time to actually read the text. It's unfortunate that those in the field that have credentials, or spouse in your case, seem to deny any evidence that is of any contradiction to their learned methods.

This, my friend, is not how science operates.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


I read the text. It's very interesting. I also don't pretend to speak for my wife, so I don't have the knowledge she does on this subject. Sorry for sounding so gruff.

If I'm understanding your point correctly, it seems you're saying that as long as you're eating "good" foods, you can eat as much as you want, and not worry about gaining weight (specifically high protein).

You also mentioned that an access of up to 500 calories of your recommended daily intake will not affect your weight. The problem is that people don't understand that whenever you put something in your mouth... a cookie, a piece of pie, a 18oz steak, it doesn't disappear. We aren't consuming 2000 - 2500 calories a day, United Nations FAO says the average American consumes 3770 calories for 2001-2003.

I'm going to read more on your links though. Let me leave you with this:
thisiswhyyourefat.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


If I'm understanding your point correctly, it seems you're saying that as long as you're eating "good" foods, you can eat as much as you want, and not worry about gaining weight (specifically high protein).


I appreciate you responding again. Here's a quote of what I said:


Studies have repeatedly shown that a person on a low-carb, high-fat, high-protein diet will not overeat. Why? Fat and protein increases satiety.

snip

Eat the right foods and you don't have to worry about moderation.


Not just protein, but fat as well. Moderation is not an issue with with eating these foods(fat and protein only) because they increase satiety. They make you full and you won't eat more than you should. Add carbs though, and you have another story. Eating a diet that with moderate to high carbohydrate intake(typical american diet because of fear of fat/meat) will cause you do overeat and crave carbs more often.

So, less satiety and more cravings with carbs = overeating!

A quote of mine from another thread:


When is the last time you sat down at a nice restaurant, ordered a healthy meal that consisted of salmon and brocolli, got to the last few bites and said, "Oh, boy! I'm stuffed. There's no way I could eat another bite.", only to be graced by the presence of your neighbors chocolate cake? All of a sudden you were hungry again, but for cake. You decided you could make room for that.

What if instead of a cake you were tempted by a juicy steak? Think you would bite?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This post points out some interesting facts.


You also mentioned that an access of up to 500 calories of your recommended daily intake will not affect your weight.


I never said that. In fact, I said quite the opposite Here's what I said:


Unless one were to maintain a caloric defecit/surplus that is upwards of 500 calories from "balance" then weight change is usually stable.


In other words, you can overeat or undereat by a few hundred calories and still be weight stable. They body adapts by adjusting metabolism.


The problem is that people don't understand that whenever you put something in your mouth... a cookie, a piece of pie, a 18oz steak, it doesn't disappear.


Agreed. But I'm telling you that a cookie, a piece of pie and a steak are going to affect your body differently.


We aren't consuming 2000 - 2500 calories a day, United Nations FAO says the average American consumes 3770 calories for 2001-2003.


I don't trust the United Nations on this subject. Besides, most survey's show that the UN data is inflated.


The study finds U.S. women increased their daily calorie consumption 22 percent between 1971 and 2000, from 1542 calories per day to 1877 calories. During the same period the calorie intake for men increased 7 percent from 2450 calories per day to 2618 calories.

www.cdc.gov...

I would suggest you check out this post as well.


I'm going to read more on your links though. Let me leave you with this:
thisiswhyyourefat.com...


That was disgusting. I see what they're doing there. "Lot's of calories and fat. Sooooooo bad for you." Truthfully, most americans couldn't sit down and eat one of those 1000+ calorie meals. Those are foods you find at the fair; they're not foods you find americans eating on a daily basis.

Why did you do that to me.....that link almost made me sick....


You should've put a
in front to warn me.


-Dev

[edit on 14-6-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join