Another (potential) strike against red meat
Replies
-
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?
Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.
And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?
No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?
To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.
And you think for some reasons the researchers did not take this into account?0 -
And you think for some reasons the researchers did not take this into account?
Yes, I think they did not take this into account.
No suggestion that they did.0 -
That's interesting. I read a study a while back that L-carnitine is good for your heart.
It very well may be in certain scenarios. This is just one study and done on people being evaluated for heart disease, and mice. That could mean they had symptoms or were of a certain age (I'm guessing here and refering to the humans). Then again, maybe it's not good. I would imagine more study is needed to really know the answers.0 -
And you think for some reasons the researchers did not take this into account?
Yes, I think they did not take this into account.
No suggestion that they did.
So you've read the actual study? Can you post a link?0 -
I eat my steak with a bottle of red wine. This way I am assured that all bacteria is alcoholized and neautralized! :drinker:
Haha! Agreed!:drinker:0 -
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?
Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.
And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?
No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?
To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.
Naw, it's easier just to fear monger with insufficient data. What a joke.0 -
Sounds more like a problem with energy drinks.
Eat the meat.
Ditch the energy drink.0 -
Why can't I find the study abstract? I've looked at Nature's Medicine journal for the April 2013 issue and cant find a thing.
Oh NVM see you found it.0 -
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?
Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.
And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?
No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?
To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.
Naw, it's easier just to fear monger with insufficient data. What a joke.
Publishing a study is not fear mongering.0 -
That's interesting. I read a study a while back that L-carnitine is good for your heart.
It very well may be in certain scenarios. This is just one study and done on people being evaluated for heart disease, and mice. That could mean they had symptoms or were of a certain age (I'm guessing here and refering to the humans). Then again, maybe it's not good. I would imagine more study is needed to really know the answers.
Oh, ok. There have been a few studies showing it's beneficial in preventing heart disease, as well as an adjunct in conventional medicines. This is the first time I've seen something suggesting that carnitine could be detrimental. I've always seen it otherwise, as being beneficial for more than just the heart. In fact, I always cite the l-carnitine as my reason for choosing some energy drinks over others. I like to choose ones that contain B-12 and B-6 as well as carnitine and taurine. (I tend to avoid the high caffeine ones.)0 -
Breaking news, Living leads to death; More at 11 !
Seriously though, I'm going to enjoy my steak dinner tonight, and I'm not going to care about this study.0 -
I'll take bacon on my burger....
with a side of red wine.0 -
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?
Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.
And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?
No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?
To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.
Naw, it's easier just to fear monger with insufficient data. What a joke.
Publishing a study is not fear mongering.
No, thats pushing the study into media who don't understand statistical analysis fully, and giving them a little info so it stirs up a storm and the study/authors noticed, so your next study gets funded as you need...0 -
This thread makes me crave a steak.0
-
Humans have been omnivores for thousands of years. The increase incidence of atherosclerosis is not caused by the consumption of red meat, it's caused by overconsumption of many food items, along with increasingly sendentary lifestyles.0
-
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?
Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.
And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?
No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?
To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.
Naw, it's easier just to fear monger with insufficient data. What a joke.
Publishing a study is not fear mongering.
No, thats pushing the study into media who don't understand statistical analysis fully, and giving them a little info so it stirs up a storm and the study/authors noticed, so your next study gets funded as you need...
QFT0 -
I heard on the news the other day that going low carb causes cancer..................0
-
From what I found so far it's the association of lipid metabolism by gut microbes on heart disease and not red meat per se. One of the metabolites that are broken down is converted to cloline and meat, fish and many plants are sources. The increase in foam cells was from apoE mice which are genetically altered and predisposed for purposes of heart disease research, which is normal. The dose given was 1%, which is high apparently and not very realistic. For me it's alwasy about context and dosage. Personally I think the Author was looking for a little sensationalism to get the reader interested, but what this really is about is gut flora and problems that can be associated with it......the full study would be nice. Again epidemiology is not cause and effect is's just conversation that needs to be researched again and again to see where it leads.Here's the Natural Medicine link, but not the full study.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3145.html
Yeah, that appears to be that same one. I would imagine the full study is or soon will be available on pubmed since the NIH published a release about it.0 -
Eh, I just have everything in moderation.
Red meat once a month.
White meat twice a week.
Fish a few times a week.
Vegetables and legumes the rest of the time.
And hope for the best, lol.0 -
better question yet which most of these morons fail to make.How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
Are they in a hypercaloric state?0 -
From what I found so far it's the association of lipid metabolism by gut microbes on heart disease and not red meat per se. One of the metabolites that are broken down is converted to cloline and meat, fish and many plants are sources. The increase in foam cells was from apoE mice which are genetically altered and predisposed for purposes of heart disease research, which is normal. The dose given was 1%, which is high apparently and not very realistic. For me it's alwasy about context and dosage. Personally I think the Author was looking for a little sensationalism to get the reader interested, but what this really is about is gut flora and problems that can be associated with it......the full study would be nice. Again epidemiology is not cause and effect is's just conversation that needs to be researched again and again to see where it leads.Here's the Natural Medicine link, but not the full study.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3145.html
Yeah, that appears to be that same one. I would imagine the full study is or soon will be available on pubmed since the NIH published a release about it.
Yes, fear mongering does sell. Doesn't it?0 -
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
Apparently they are being fed energy drinks. Whats a sick twisted world we live in lol0 -
Bacon is still better.
Bacon is red meat.
Bacon is awesome.
Bacon is meat candy!0 -
How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.
Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.
All a bit simple IMO.
It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?
Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.
And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?
No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?
To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.
Naw, it's easier just to fear monger with insufficient data. What a joke.
Publishing a study is not fear mongering.
No, thats pushing the study into media who don't understand statistical analysis fully, and giving them a little info so it stirs up a storm and the study/authors noticed, so your next study gets funded as you need...
The NIH is in the business of publishing studies. It's not as if they are "media" like the local news. It's not their fault if people can't understand and call a simple study "fear mongering". Should they just not publish studies?0 -
http://examine.com/blog/media-sensationalism:-meat-is-bad-for-your-heart/
"TL;DR?
The study found that in genetically modified mice, a high (but not impossible) dosage of l-carnitine did double plaque buildup. This may or may not be related to TMAO, we cannot say. This may or may not happen in humans, we cannot say. Overall? It's just preliminary research that should only interest other researchers, not the layperson.
At this time, restricting your carnitine consumption is not a prudent response for most people."0 -
0 -
Breaking news, Living leads to death; More at 11 !
Well, Crap!0 -
http://examine.com/blog/media-sensationalism:-meat-is-bad-for-your-heart/
"TL;DR?
The study found that in genetically modified mice, a high (but not impossible) dosage of l-carnitine did double plaque buildup. This may or may not be related to TMAO, we cannot say. This may or may not happen in humans, we cannot say. Overall? It's just preliminary research that should only interest other researchers, not the layperson.
At this time, restricting your carnitine consumption is not a prudent response for most people."
The study also found that in human subjects who were not long-term vegetarians, carnitine increased serum TMAO levels. It's important to realize that part of the study involved actual humans.
How bad is that? That's what we don't know. But TMAO does appear to be associated with cardiovascular disease.0 -
0 -
Bacon is still better.
Bacon is red meat.
lol no0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions