LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 03-25-2009, 02:21 PM   #1
Boveosteors

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
374
Senior Member
Default Meat and Mortality
I read Dr. Eades' (Protein Power) blog. His blog today is very interesting and one that we, as meat eaters (and, I suppose, the few vegetarians here), SHOULD read. Check it out.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/f...and-mortality/
Boveosteors is offline


Old 03-25-2009, 04:10 PM   #2
DianaDrk

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
359
Senior Member
Default
I've seen so many of these studies and I have to admit, I eat far more red meat than I am comfortable with on Atkins - but it does work for me during weight loss.

I know for me that when I get closer to final goal I'll eat more veg anyway and I'm banking on this counteracting any negative effects if there are any anyway.

I'm never sure which study to believe to be honest.Some seem very plausible and statistics are so easily manipulated (they can be very selective) - I used to be a researcher.

In the 1960's and 70's in the UK, we had government advertising campaigns to 'drink a pint of milk a day' and 'go to work on an egg'. It was later proved that they were actually created by the milk and egg marketing boards and the government was being influenced by the industry's to promote them.

Its turned me into a cynic.

But I know that many on this diet have had really positive effects on their health (me included and I've a long way to go) and obesity cuts years off the life span anyway.

Interesting and worthwhile article Tril - thanks
DianaDrk is offline


Old 03-26-2009, 06:18 PM   #3
Boveosteors

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
374
Senior Member
Default
And today I get this... Mark Sisson's response to the same biased reporting of the "meat and mortality study":

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/

Tril
Boveosteors is offline


Old 03-26-2009, 11:29 PM   #4
DianaDrk

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
359
Senior Member
Default
Interesting. I like his take on the fact that carb consumption is not usually correlated correctly. A good article.
DianaDrk is offline


Old 03-26-2009, 11:44 PM   #5
Boveosteors

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
374
Senior Member
Default
Really makes you sit back and rethink these "medical" reports, huh? There's a slight increase in mortality for the people who reported eating red meat... but they never considered that anything else they were eating might have contributed to their mortality rate! How lame is that? I suppose you could design any observational "study" to "prove" any hypothesis. What really bugs me is the same day this article came out in the NEJM, there was also an article published which showed no correlation between meat consumption and mortality... but the press never reported on THAT article.

Note to self: Never EVER allow the media to tell me what's healthy (or true). LOL

Tril
Boveosteors is offline


Old 03-27-2009, 10:38 AM   #6
DianaDrk

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
359
Senior Member
Default
Note to self: Never EVER allow the media to tell me what's healthy (or true). LOL

Tril
Absolutely!
DianaDrk is offline


Old 03-27-2009, 03:08 PM   #7
evammaUselp

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
427
Senior Member
Default
Does anyone else remember a Woody Allen comedy named Sleeper? One of the funny scenes in this very funny picture is when the protagonist (Allen of course) is getting "defrosted" in a future time. The characters doing the defrosting process are commenting about our hero's diet during his lifetime and "didn't they know then that red meat and fat and all those things are good for you"? I always think of that scene when a new food study comes out. Eventually, everything is listed as either healthy or unhealthy. I just know (now!) what works for me.
evammaUselp is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity