Another (potential) strike against red meat
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Does Red Meat Clog Your Arteries After All? Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-red-meat-clog-your-arteries-after-all/#ixzz2Q57lWu8i0
-
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/Allistatin
i sure hope so.
its like saying the best antiobiotics come from mushrooms.
otherwise its like saying penicillin and other antibiotics derive from shrooms
let me go out and go to the street side drug dealer buy some shrooms0 -
^This is the problem I have with you reddy, you lie. Nowhere did he say that pharmaceuticals can do no wrong. He made it quite clear that he doesn't think that. Why do you always lie, it drives me crazy watching you in threads making things up and then people read them, probably don't read the 20 pages of infinite quotes before it, and assume they made that claim. Stop it.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 -
Those are massive doses considering even supplements are about 500 mg a dose. lol
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/
I'm just going to remember to eat kimchi with my red meat.0 -
^This is the problem I have with you reddy, you lie. Nowhere did he say that pharmaceuticals can do no wrong. He made it quite clear that he doesn't think that. Why do you always lie, it drives me crazy watching you in threads making things up and then people read them, probably don't read the 20 pages of infinite quotes before it, and assume they made that claim. Stop it.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.
no that's fair in this particular case since he clearly did admit they can do wrong. haha. I am prone to typing emotionally instead of thinking out my posts sometimes.
however he did say they were the best invention since butter.
and people constantly say things that I "think" or that I've "said" that aren't true. How many times have I been called orthorexic? It's a message board - grow some thicker skin. at the end of the day I've got nothing against any of you because I don't know you - it's just fun to debate and learn about nutrition-y stuff. I don't take it personally. None of us should.0 -
The antibiotics/drugs are not the problem, rather, the behavior of physicians and patients who insist on over-utilizing them is the problem.
Medexpress is the perfect example, they hand out antibiotics like candy. Additionally, misguided patients with viral infections mistakenly request antibiotics.0 -
pickled foods is associated with GI cancer.
Those are massive doses considering even supplements are about 500 mg a dose. lol
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/
I'm just going to remember to eat kimchi with my red meat.
chicken can have salmonella and kill you
there may be e.coli in your spinach. dont eat it
there maybe be mad cow disease in your meat so they should give the cow a sedative so it wont be so mad
i am just being a prick and associating something wrong with every type of food out there like what the news is doing0 -
The antibiotics/drugs are not the problem, rather, the behavior of physicians and patients who insist on over-utilizing them is the problem.
Medexpress is the perfect example, they hand out antibiotics like candy. Additionally, misguided patients with viral infections mistakenly request antibiotics.
this is my actual opinion re: antibiotics. agree completely0 -
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
Raw garlic is a good antibiotic because it targets the bad bacteria leaving the good.
It's more a preventative antibiotic than a treatment.0 -
^This is the problem I have with you reddy, you lie. Nowhere did he say that pharmaceuticals can do no wrong. He made it quite clear that he doesn't think that. Why do you always lie, it drives me crazy watching you in threads making things up and then people read them, probably don't read the 20 pages of infinite quotes before it, and assume they made that claim. Stop it.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.
no that's fair in this particular case since he clearly did admit they can do wrong. haha. I am prone to typing emotionally instead of thinking out my posts sometimes.
however he did say they were the best invention since butter.
and people constantly say things that I "think" or that I've "said" that aren't true. How many times have I been called orthorexic? It's a message board - grow some thicker skin. at the end of the day I've got nothing against any of you because I don't know you - it's just fun to debate and learn about nutrition-y stuff. I don't take it personally. None of us should.
but at the same time you need to understand the base of knowledge to create a full argument
Disorder is defined as - a derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid physical or mental state.
While anti-biotics may cause some problems such as hepatoxicity. the other alternative of not taking anything is letting the bacteria kill you0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions