Another (potential) strike against red meat
Replies
-
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?
Huh?
yyyeah.... antibiotics aren't great for us. but we can save that discussion for another time/thread if you want.
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. Are you even reading?0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?
Huh?
yyyeah.... antibiotics aren't great for us. but we can save that discussion for another time/thread if you want.
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. Are you even reading?
agree. my bad.0 -
Standing in sun light MAY lead to skin cancer.
It does the raise the risk.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?
Huh?
yyyeah.... antibiotics aren't great for us. but we can save that discussion for another time/thread if you want.
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. Are you even reading?
I agree.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.0
-
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.
If you avoided ALL food that was EVER potentially harmful, one would simply die of starvation as EVERY food we eat carries risks under certain conditions.0 -
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.
If you avoided ALL food that was EVER potentially harmful, one would simply die of starvation as EVERY food we eat carries risks under certain conditions.
I don't believe that is what she was saying. And I doubt you do either.0 -
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.
If you avoided ALL food that was EVER potentially harmful, one would simply die of starvation as EVERY food we eat carries risks under certain conditions.
I don't believe that is what she was saying. And I doubt you do either.
no she's saying that no matter how many studies come out about meat, people will still eat it anyway. I'm saying everything has risks/benefits (though particularly pointing out the risks in that post).0 -
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.
Is that sort of how you can have 50 studies proving that you can't build muscle in a deficit but people will still claim they got bulky thighs while doing lunges while holding 5 pound weights and eating 1100 calories per day?0 -
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.
If you avoided ALL food that was EVER potentially harmful, one would simply die of starvation as EVERY food we eat carries risks under certain conditions.
I don't believe that is what she was saying. And I doubt you do either.
no she's saying that no matter how many studies come out about meat, people will still eat it anyway. I'm saying everything has risks/benefits (though particularly pointing out the risks in that post).
Yes thats what I'm saying. Doesn't matter what food it is or how high the health risk is, people will still eat it. Some people will choose to reduce or stop their intake, others won't because A.) they don't care or B.) they don't want to believe it and 80 more studies showing the same thing won't change their mind. People have relationships with food.0 -
There could be like 50 studies that find the same thing and people will still choose to ignore it and eat the stuff, could be anything, red meat, broccoli, whatever, people are going to do what they want regardless of research findings.
If you avoided ALL food that was EVER potentially harmful, one would simply die of starvation as EVERY food we eat carries risks under certain conditions.
I don't believe that is what she was saying. And I doubt you do either.
no she's saying that no matter how many studies come out about meat, people will still eat it anyway. I'm saying everything has risks/benefits (though particularly pointing out the risks in that post).
But everything doesn't have the same risk. I'm sure there is a diet scenario in which broccoli would cause a risk of disease. But there is no known health risk (that I'm aware of) associated with broccoli. There is an associated risk with red meat. Whether the specific cause is known or not, the evidence shows that people who eat more red meat have more disease. Even when other known factors like weight, smoking, etc. are accounted for, people with higher consumption of red meat have more disease. That's an associated risk. Some choose to ignore it because the specific cause is not proven. I can't speak for the other poster, but I think that is what was meant.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
According to the study, high amounts of gut flora consisting of Prevotella bacteria seemed to be the cause of higher TMAO levels, which according to another study was from eating a high carb diet.
"In a study of gut bacteria of children in Burkina Faso (in Africa), Prevotella made up 53% of the gut bacteria, but were absent in age-matched European children. Studies also indicate that long-term diet is strongly associated with the gut microbiome composition - those who eat plenty of protein and animal fats typical of Western diet have predominantly Bacteroides bacteria, while for those who consume more carbohydrates the Prevotella species dominate."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3368382/0 -
I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.
Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.
Perhaps I should have worded it better but the amount given was for red meat consumed per day. The study followed people who had a certain amount of red meat per day and found problems with their health. The amount was very high-- higher than I've ever seen anyone consume in a day. It also mentioned that a lesser amount consumed on a daily basis was not problematic. Doesn't worry me either way as I don't much enjoy the flavor of red meat anyway.
Are you sure it's the same study? This study was done on patients undergoing heart evaluations and found the link, rather at people eating red meat. Though, it did turn out that they ate red meat, that was not the focus.
No, they were specifically studying the effects of red meat. I never said they were the same study, just mentioning a different study.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?0 -
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
Some do kill gut bacteria. But sometimes killing good bacteria is secondary to killing bad. Long term low dose antibiotics are often used to treat some gut motility disorders.
There absolutely is overuse of antibiotics, but it's hard not to admit that they truly are awesome in general. WAY better than butter IMO.0 -
How on earth did this become about the benefits and risks of antibiotics?0
-
Also the mechanisms that furthered athrogenic behavior were macrophages and foam cell formation, which were performed on apoE mice that are genetically altered and are predisposed for this type of study with a dose of 1%. If someone is on a 2000 calorie diet that would represent 20 calories or 20,000 mg's. If a 3 ounce piece of meat has 80 mg's the dose would need about 46 lbs of red meat at one time. The Author said it's not the consumption of red meat per se but the supplementation of carintine that would be problematic. Another context and dosage problem, not to mention it's about gut flora, not red meat. I can live with that, lol.neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
According to the study, high amounts of gut flora consisting of Prevotella bacteria seemed to be the cause of higher TMAO levels, which according to another study was from eating a high carb diet.
"In a study of gut bacteria of children in Burkina Faso (in Africa), Prevotella made up 53% of the gut bacteria, but were absent in age-matched European children. Studies also indicate that long-term diet is strongly associated with the gut microbiome composition - those who eat plenty of protein and animal fats typical of Western diet have predominantly Bacteroides bacteria, while for those who consume more carbohydrates the Prevotella species dominate."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3368382/0 -
OMG! Is it going to hit 2%?neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
Also, I like red meat, I'd probably be dead if I didn't eat that and deep fried cod. I don't eat it allot but it's about the only place I get iron.0 -
How on earth did this become about the benefits and risks of antibiotics?
inadvertently your fault when you said they got rid of the red meat bacteria.
we can segue back any time0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
yes, the number of resistant bacteria is climbing. No, it is mostlz due to improper treatment courses which selects for specific hardier bacteria MRSA is not due to antibiotic use in food husbandry.
and no, antibiotics can lead to other disorders but rarely do. It is not a given. No one is suggesting they be used as a chronic first line treatment for artherosclerosis. Just like no one uses them as the chronic standard of treatment for H. Pylori for ulcers.
edit - But they could be used as a start treatment.0 -
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
Some do kill gut bacteria. But sometimes killing good bacteria is secondary to killing bad. Long term low dose antibiotics are often used to treat some gut motility disorders.
There absolutely is overuse of antibiotics, but it's hard not to admit that they truly are awesome in general. WAY better than butter IMO.
One of the best antibiotics is raw garlic.0 -
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
Some do kill gut bacteria. But sometimes killing good bacteria is secondary to killing bad. Long term low dose antibiotics are often used to treat some gut motility disorders.
There absolutely is overuse of antibiotics, but it's hard not to admit that they truly are awesome in general. WAY better than butter IMO.
One of the best antibiotics is raw garlic.
No, it's not.0 -
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
Some do kill gut bacteria. But sometimes killing good bacteria is secondary to killing bad. Long term low dose antibiotics are often used to treat some gut motility disorders.
There absolutely is overuse of antibiotics, but it's hard not to admit that they truly are awesome in general. WAY better than butter IMO.
One of the best antibiotics is raw garlic.
what are you smoking?
Cause I wanna get on that too.
Antibiotics will kill normal flora, so you are saying that garlic will kill all the bacteria in my system?
if that happens I wont be able to properly digest things and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
how about this
when you have a kid, dont give him any bacterial vaccines and stick to garlic.
let me know how that works for you0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
yes, the number of resistant bacteria is climbing. No, it is mostlz due to improper treatment courses which selects for specific hardier bacteria MRSA is not due to antibiotic use in food husbandry.
and no, antibiotics can lead to other disorders but rarely do. It is not a given. No one is suggesting they be used as a chronic first line treatment for artherosclerosis. Just like no one uses them as the chronic standard of treatment for H. Pylori for ulcers.
edit - But they could be used as a start treatment.
your second statement is absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. it is not at all rare. unfortunately your perspective is horribly biased since you worked in pharmaceuticals. of course you think they can do no wrong.0 -
I think he is messing 'best antibiotics' with 'the antibiotic in garlic'@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
Some do kill gut bacteria. But sometimes killing good bacteria is secondary to killing bad. Long term low dose antibiotics are often used to treat some gut motility disorders.
There absolutely is overuse of antibiotics, but it's hard not to admit that they truly are awesome in general. WAY better than butter IMO.
One of the best antibiotics is raw garlic.
what are you smoking?
Cause I wanna get on that too.
Antibiotics will kill normal flora, so you are saying that garlic will kill all the bacteria in my system?
if that happens I wont be able to properly digest things and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
how about this
when you have a kid, dont give him any bacterial vaccines and stick to garlic.
let me know how that works for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allistatin0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
That makes more sense. Although i really don't think you can blame red meat on any particular gut bacteria (not saying you or the study are doing this, but that's how it's being interpreted)... about 10 years ago when I was at uni there were studies saying sulphates in processed meat = bad gut bacteria = I can't remember what problems... but bad gut bacteria itself can come from all kinds of factors, not just diet but (for example) being too hygienic and sterilising everything, whether you have a pet, many things.
The idea that atheriosclerosis can be treated with antibiotics or the right kind of probiotics (the latter I think would be better) is a very interesting one anyway)
Let's modify that and say "the idea of treating possibly one risk/factor out of many" ...@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.
@reddy - they are the greatest invention since butter. full stop. In some very rare situations they create problems but about 80 million + descendants of the population today is alive thanks to an antibiotic intervention. The number of deaths from resistant bugs isn't even 1% of 1% of 1% of the lives saved by antibiotics. They are awesome.
but the number of resistant bugs is climbing, is it not? and is this not due to our overuse of antibiotics in everything from food to the treatment of acne?
antibiotics don't also kill the good bacteria in your stomach leading to candida overgrowth and a plethora of other digestive disorders?
yes, the number of resistant bacteria is climbing. No, it is mostlz due to improper treatment courses which selects for specific hardier bacteria MRSA is not due to antibiotic use in food husbandry.
and no, antibiotics can lead to other disorders but rarely do. It is not a given. No one is suggesting they be used as a chronic first line treatment for artherosclerosis. Just like no one uses them as the chronic standard of treatment for H. Pylori for ulcers.
edit - But they could be used as a start treatment.
your second statement is absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. it is not at all rare. unfortunately your perspective is horribly biased since you worked in pharmaceuticals. of course you think they can do no wrong.
whats the definition of a disorder.
please enlighten me0
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