Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Replies

  • LyndaBSSLyndaBSS Posts: 6,494Member, Premium Member Posts: 6,494Member, Premium Member
    I don't bother with any of those articles. I eat the foods that I love, stay in a calorie deficit and lose weight. 👍
  • goldthistimegoldthistime Posts: 3,247Member Member Posts: 3,247Member Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Yes, saw this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

    ...At the heart of the debate is a dispute over nutritional research itself, and whether it’s possible to ascertain the effects of just one component of the diet. The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, in which one group of participants is assigned one drug or diet, and another is assigned a different intervention or a placebo.

    But asking people to stick to a diet assigned by a flip of a coin, and to stay with it long enough to know if it affects the risk for heart attack or cancer, is nearly impossible.

    The alternative is an observational study: Investigators ask people what they eat and look for links to health. But it can be hard to know what people really are eating, and people who eat a lot of meat are different in many other ways from those who eat little or none.

    “Do individuals who habitually consume burgers for lunch typically also consume fries and a Coke, rather than yogurt or a salad and a piece of fruit?” asked Alice Lichtenstein, a nutritionist at Tufts University. “I don’t think an evidence-based position can be taken unless we know and adjust for the replacement food.”

    Thank you that article was a much more complete discussion of the topic.
  • sgt1372sgt1372 Posts: 3,242Member Member Posts: 3,242Member Member
    I have eaten red meat weekly (and on occasion daily) my entire life and am as healthy as any 69 yr old can be.

    I do have a high cholesterol level but it is unclear if that is caused by eating red meat because there are other things that I eat that are also cholesterol rich

    I'm not saying that anyone "should" eat red meat but I have always felt that the "dangers" of doing so has been grossly overstated and I am pleased that this article confirms my opinion in this regard.
    edited October 2
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,129Member Member Posts: 7,129Member Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    I have eaten red meat weekly (and on occasion daily) my entire life and am as healthy as any 69 yr old can be.

    I do have a high cholesterol level but it is unclear if that is caused by eating red meat because there are other things that I eat that are also cholesterol rich

    I'm not saying that anyone "should" eat red meat but I have always felt that the "dangers" of doing so has been grossly overstated and I am pleased that this article confirms my opinion in this regard.

    From what I read, the individual study in this meta study that had by far the largest number of participants (and thus most heavily influencing the meta study results) compared people who ate something like 8 oz. of red meat a day to people who ate something like 6 oz. of red meat a day, and concluded on the lack of significant difference in mortality between those groups that it doesn't matter how much red meat people eat. There was also a lot of weird stuff in the conclusions opining that because it's difficult to convince people to eat less red meat that there was no point in attempting it anyway. When I see that, it's difficult not to think that the authors had an agenda.

    I eat red meat. Not twice a day, every day, these days, just out of preference, but I've certainly had times in my life when I've eaten red meat almost every day.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,359Member Member Posts: 9,359Member Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Yes, saw this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

    ...At the heart of the debate is a dispute over nutritional research itself, and whether it’s possible to ascertain the effects of just one component of the diet. The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, in which one group of participants is assigned one drug or diet, and another is assigned a different intervention or a placebo.

    But asking people to stick to a diet assigned by a flip of a coin, and to stay with it long enough to know if it affects the risk for heart attack or cancer, is nearly impossible.

    The alternative is an observational study: Investigators ask people what they eat and look for links to health. But it can be hard to know what people really are eating, and people who eat a lot of meat are different in many other ways from those who eat little or none.

    “Do individuals who habitually consume burgers for lunch typically also consume fries and a Coke, rather than yogurt or a salad and a piece of fruit?” asked Alice Lichtenstein, a nutritionist at Tufts University. “I don’t think an evidence-based position can be taken unless we know and adjust for the replacement food.”

    Thank you that article was a much more complete discussion of the topic.

    Yes, I like that they included this as well:

    "...Questions of personal health do not even begin to address the environmental degradation caused worldwide by intensive meat production. Meat and dairy are big contributors to climate change, with livestock production accounting for about 14.5 percent of the greenhouse gases that humans emit worldwide each year.

    Beef in particular tends to have an outsized climate footprint, partly because of all the land needed to raise cattle and grow feed, and partly because cows belch up methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

    Researchers have estimated that, on average, beef has about five times the climate impact of chicken or pork, per gram of protein. Plant-based foods tend to have an even smaller impact."

    KRS-One had a song about this in the 1990s.
  • goldthistimegoldthistime Posts: 3,247Member Member Posts: 3,247Member Member
    I have a couple friends who have had heart attacks and have been told by their cardiologists that they can have red meat once a month, at most. I interpret that to mean that someone who wishes to avoid heart attack should follow the same advice (in conjunction with other advice from the cardiologist, such as keeping weight down, of course).

    But I feel better having red meat more often than that, maybe three times a month. It’s probably the iron, but maybe it’s the carnitine, or something else I don’t know about and so can’t take a supplement as a substitute. Plus I have seen too many examples of where supplements end up causing problems where eating the food containing the desired nutrient doesn’t.

    I have felt that the prevailing view on MFP has been closer to the view of this study than it has to the advice of some “experts”. Lots of intelligent people here, but I’m uncomfortable ignoring the experts. So call me weak minded, but I’m happy to see a report that dials back the dangers of red and processed meat.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,211Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,211Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    I have a couple friends who have had heart attacks and have been told by their cardiologists that they can have red meat once a month, at most. I interpret that to mean that someone who wishes to avoid heart attack should follow the same advice (in conjunction with other advice from the cardiologist, such as keeping weight down, of course).

    But I feel better having red meat more often than that, maybe three times a month. It’s probably the iron, but maybe it’s the carnitine, or something else I don’t know about and so can’t take a supplement as a substitute. Plus I have seen too many examples of where supplements end up causing problems where eating the food containing the desired nutrient doesn’t.

    I have felt that the prevailing view on MFP has been closer to the view of this study than it has to the advice of some “experts”. Lots of intelligent people here, but I’m uncomfortable ignoring the experts. So call me weak minded, but I’m happy to see a report that dials back the dangers of red and processed meat.

    If you look at several the historical meta-analyses on meat, most of the dangers are involved with processed meats. Overall, it's more hyperpalatable processed foods that should be limited over whole natural foods.
  • Keep_on_cardioKeep_on_cardio Posts: 4,218Member Member Posts: 4,218Member Member
    I can think back, to when my bloodwork was the best in numbers (for myself). I was eating lean meat (turkey and chicken), fish. I believe depending on ones genetics and medical ailments, diet is personalized. I don’t believe it’s masked, for a particular eating plan being healthy for all.
  • cheryldumaischeryldumais Posts: 1,818Member Member Posts: 1,818Member Member
    lgfrie wrote: »
    The entire nutrition industrial complex is a gigantic confusing mess.

    Eggs - bad, no good, no bad, no actually great, well they're fine in moderation.

    Dietary cholesterol kills you because it clogs your arteries, no wait it doesn't actually go to your arteries so it's fine, no actually it isn't fine but in moderation it's' OK.

    Salt is the great evil, no fat is the great evil, hold on only saturated fat is the great evil but other fats can be really good for you, wait sugar is the great evil.

    You should get most of your calories from carbs, no hold on you shouldn't eat any carbs, wait some carbs are good but others are bad.

    Protein - good. No wait, fatty proteins bad, no wait fat is good, except some fats, so eat lean proteins, and now according to this study ... proteins with saturated fat are probably not a problem.

    I'm getting to a point where I find all this tiresome and pointless. Unless you want to go insane chasing the theory of the month, all you can do is eat balanced meals and ignore the background noise.

    What, really, has been accomplished in Nutrition in the past 50 years? Our great great great grandparents knew you should eat your vegetables, get some exercise, and not engage in gluttony.

    This made me chuckle. I often think about the butter debate. When I was a child everyone got rid of butter and switched to margarine. Now margarine is the devil. I think we all have to just relax and do the best we can. There are so many things that we can't control in life. My dad used to say "everything matters, but nothing matters very much". Moderation is the key. Eat what makes you feel the best and watch to see what rots... Seriously, don't you find it odd that some of the highly processed foods never spoil? Do the molds and bugs know something we don't? :o

  • CaliValleyGirlCaliValleyGirl Posts: 618Member Member Posts: 618Member Member
    I hate weak meat :/
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,129Member Member Posts: 7,129Member Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    I have eaten red meat weekly (and on occasion daily) my entire life and am as healthy as any 69 yr old can be.

    I do have a high cholesterol level but it is unclear if that is caused by eating red meat because there are other things that I eat that are also cholesterol rich

    I'm not saying that anyone "should" eat red meat but I have always felt that the "dangers" of doing so has been grossly overstated and I am pleased that this article confirms my opinion in this regard.

    From what I read, the individual study in this meta study that had by far the largest number of participants (and thus most heavily influencing the meta study results) compared people who ate something like 8 oz. of red meat a day to people who ate something like 6 oz. of red meat a day, and concluded on the lack of significant difference in mortality between those groups that it doesn't matter how much red meat people eat. There was also a lot of weird stuff in the conclusions opining that because it's difficult to convince people to eat less red meat that there was no point in attempting it anyway. When I see that, it's difficult not to think that the authors had an agenda.

    I eat red meat. Not twice a day, every day, these days, just out of preference, but I've certainly had times in my life when I've eaten red meat almost every day.

    @lynn_glenmont and here you go:

    Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

    The lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston, said he was not required to report his past relationship with a powerful industry trade group.

    ...as recently as December 2016 he was the senior author on a similar study that tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar. That study, which also appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, or ILSI, an industry trade group largely supported by agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical companies and whose members have included McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, one of the largest beef processors in North America. The industry group, founded by a top Coca-Cola executive four decades ago, has long been accused by the World Health Organization and others of trying to undermine public health recommendations to advance the interests of its corporate members.

    Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html

    Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.