It's a real treat to be eating meat

[Demi]

An interesting article, which did make me wonder if anyone here had been through the same sort of experience.



It's a real treat to be eating meat


The Daily Telegraph
London, UK
14 October 2005


After 12 years as a vegetarian, Precious Williams felt tired, was prone to infections and was overweight. Then she realised that her diet could be to blame...

Last week, after 12 years of strict vegetarianism, I tucked into an oozing pink slab of sirloin steak. By the time the meat reached my plate, I hadn't eaten a morsel of meat during my entire adult life.

The idea of going vegetarian had hit me - literally - one morning during my first year at Oxford. On my way to a lecture, I was bashed in the face by a blood-caked dead pig that was dangling outside a butcher's shop. Already feeling hung-over and fragile, I promptly threw up and vowed never to eat meat again.

That evening, while my friends dined on beef Wellington at Formal Hall, I nibbled smugly on sautéed spinach with a side dish of broccoli. I had become revolted by meat when I was 10 and a classmate at school informed me that sausages (which I loved then) were made of pig testicles and wrapped in slivers of intestine.

Despite my horror at this, I continued eating meat and simply made a huge effort not to associate sausages with pigs or hamburgers with cows. But once I'd left home (where everybody ate meat and lots of it, at every meal) and started university, I felt keen to assert my newfound independence.

I became a vegan overnight - and found this surprisingly easy, mainly because I naturally hate the foods that veganism forbids: eggs and dairy products. Then I moved to New York, home of the obscure food fad, and I immediately upgraded from veganism to macrobiotics - the brown rice and seaweed diet that reputedly keeps Gwyneth Paltrow and Madonna slim and serene.

Sadly, macrobiotics didn't really work for me. I ended up looking pale and feeling immensely hungry. I decided that the reason I felt washed out was because my diet, despite being organic and meat-free - wasn't healthy enough. So I cut out sugar, white bread, white rice, pasta, dairy products and wheat and, after reading that fashion designer Donna Karan was following a "raw food" diet - I stopped cooking my vegetables.

Karan had apparently lost a stone and a half and gained loads of energy by eating raw vegetables and "sprouted" grains. I tried it and gained half a stone and felt so extraordinarily sleepy that I could barely stagger to the local organic supermarket to buy my vegetables. Why, I wondered, did my friends who lived on pizza, pasta and hamburgers look so much healthier than me?

By this time, vegetarianism had become a huge part of my identity. I frequented health food shops, secretly looked down on people who ate meat, thinking them unenlightened and Neanderthal. I fantasised that I was doing wonderful things for my health by rejecting meat.

The truth was that with each slightly more extreme variation of vegetarianism I tried, I grew slightly weaker, more lethargic, more depressed and - worse still - slightly fatter.

Every time I had a late night, I seemed immediately to get a cold afterwards. Often, I'd faint during the first day of my period each month. I felt ravenously hungry immediately after I'd eaten.

No amount of chickpeas, tofu, vegetables, fruit or lentils seemed potent enough to fill me up. When I looked at my reflection in the bathroom mirror I would be disgusted by how pale I looked. Even my tongue and lips looked pale.

I consulted my GP, who did a blood test that confirmed I was anaemic. She suggested that I gave up vegetarianism, because, she claimed, red meat is the only easily assimilated source of dietary iron. In being anaemic, I was far from alone. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 per cent of women of childbearing age in America are iron deficient.

As well as making you feel weak and tired, anaemia apparently gradually undermines your intellectual performance. "Women especially need to know this is actually affecting their brain and the way they're thinking," says Laura Murray-Kolb, a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State University.

I decided to persevere with vegetarianism anyway (although I did buy iron tablets, which didn't seem to do much good). Then, a few months ago, something strange happened. While shopping for my groceries at the local deli, I started lingering by the organic meat counter, stealing surreptitious glances at slabs of marbled beef and chunky lamb chops. I was like a little girl eyeing the glamorous clothes in her mother's wardrobe.

Around the same time, I read that Elizabeth Hurley was following something called the Blood Type Diet, started by a naturopath called Dr D'Adamo who claimed that there was no such thing as a one-size-fits-all healthy diet. In short, vegetarianism simply couldn't work for everybody.

D'Adamo claims that it all boils down to your blood group: people whose blood group is A can thrive as vegetarians and shouldn't eat any meat, while those of blood group O can't thrive without red meat. My blood group is O. I suddenly started to feel that meat, the only thing I hadn't tried eating in recent years, was the missing link to good health.

"There are certain people who simply need meat in order to thrive," says Meg Richichi, a New York doctor of Oriental Medicine. "I can look at people and tell that vegetarianism simply won't work for them. Chinese medicine dictates everything in moderation, including red meat."

And so, last Monday, while shopping for organic vegetables at Dean & Deluca in Manhattan, I decided to buy a steak. Looking at the vast bloody array of tenderloins, sirloins and ribeyes, I felt dizzy and overwhelmed.

Finally, I pointed at any old steak, said: "Give me half a pound of that" (nobody in New York ever says "please") and scuttled to the checkout, feeling slightly sordid.

When I got my parcel of steak home, I put it on the kitchen table, unwrapped it carefully and stared at it. I felt as though I had just brought home something dangerous, something that I had no idea how to use: like a gun.

My steak (medium rare and served with organic asparagus) was delicious. I felt daring and grown-up as I ate it. I'd expected to want to throw up at the first bite, but instead I felt satiated and bubbling with energy. Two days later, I had a small, organic lamb chop for lunch and the following day, a leg of corn-fed chicken.

By the end of the week, I felt overwhelmingly full of life. My tongue was pink again and when I went to the gym I was able to run for 40 minutes without stopping, instead of flaking out after 20.

Since re-establishing myself as a carnivore, I've also lost 5lb in one week, perhaps because after eating a meal that contains meat I don't feel hungry again until the next meal-time.

My vegetarian friends are, of course, horrified. I agree that it's a drastic leap, but I love making snap decisions and I love testing my willpower.

When I decided to give up smoking four years ago, I simply opened my sitting-room window, tossed a full pack of Marlboro Lights out on to the street, closed the window and never smoked again. Of course, everyone agrees that smoking is bad for you.

But the best health decision I've ever made was giving up vegetarianism.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2005/10/14/hmeat14.xml&sSheet=/health/2005/10/14/ixhmain.html

[serrelind]

Haha what a fun article to read. I hope the writer didn't associate eating meat with blood type, which I think is BS. My mom is a vegan too (due to her religous beliefs) and while she has lost a lot of weight, she looks unhealthy and pale all the time.

[arc]

Interesting article. I agree that the blood type thing is BS. I'm type A and no way would I thrive as a vegetarian.

She sure seems to be very influenced by celebrity fad diets.

[wjzmom]

Since I'm an A, the blood type diet theory is always in the back of my mind.
Even though I was a veg for a year and did alright until I cut out dairy. I became incredibly thin and anemic, I lost so much muscle.
But even still, whenever LC becomes challenging or gross to me there's always that "well you're an A maybe you shouldn't eat meat."
It haunts me.

There's always that struggle going on in my head about it.
Weird, I know.

[Nancy LC]

By this time, vegetarianism had become a huge part of my identity. I frequented health food shops, secretly looked down on people who ate meat, thinking them unenlightened and Neanderthal. I fantasised that I was doing wonderful things for my health by rejecting meat.


And they wonder why we find them annoying at times?

[Dodger]

And they wonder why we find them annoying at times?But it is Neanderthal! That's what I like about low-carbing.

[quax]

I also take great pride in being a 21st century caveman !!

[csj]

Yeah, it is great the writer is doing better but I think the whole thing also points out how nutty it is to think that TV, fashion, and movie stars know squat about health.

[mrfreddy]

she tossed the smokes out into the street??? isn't that littering? even here in NYC, that is suprisingly selfish and nasty... hopefully some healthy meat eating will defog her brain and improve her judgement...

[dasanipure]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING THIS!!

I really, really, really enjoyed this article. I'm not sure how many people here can relate to it like I could: I used to be vegetarian-border-line-vegan for 3, awful years. I can relate to her on so many levels. I know she sounds a bit immature, but V*ism turns into a sort of religion for people...and one of the most horrible parts of making the switch back into a normal diet is the social isolation from all your friends. I know she sounds like a fickle child, but I, for one, can relate to her celebrity-worship (I worshipped my healthy-looking vegan friends like that...even though I was getting progressively sicker)

Just goes to show that one should be careful before they judge. I feel so awful for the sorts of things that I thought about carnivores: now, there are days that I eat more meat in a day that I used to in a week. (I eat a "normal" amount of meat - 2-3 servings/day...but I used eat SO little meat, even when I was an omnivore as a child, it scares me.) Now that I have a whole new set of health problems (complications of PCOS), I get the feeling that my vegetarian friends think that "meat is the culprit". Sigh.

[LC FP]

There are a lot of people who are very committed to a vegetarian lifestyle. It's PC, but it's also a bit counter-culture.

I think LC is the ultimate in counter-culture, because most all popular and recognized authorities decry it. Maybe if it was sold as the next new anti-establishment diet it would hold more appeal to the great number of anti-'s out there.

[kyrasdad]

I think LC is the ultimate in counter-culture, because most all popular and recognized authorities decry it. Maybe if it was sold as the next new anti-establishment diet it would hold more appeal to the great number of anti-'s out there.

It's also counterculture because it really defies the ability of large corporations to cash in on it. It will never get the granloa-type vibe that veganism has, but then LC is not a religion, and almost nobody does it for ethical reasons. Veganism (doesn't it even sound religious?) is trumpeted more for its philosophical and ethical aspects than anything else.

I have yet to see any individual try to promote low carb for reasons other than it seems to be a healthy way to eat. No "I don't eat it if it has a face" kind of ethical pushes. Just "I'm losing weight and I feel good" kind of things.

[quax]

It's also counterculture because it really defies the ability of large corporations to cash in on it.

I have to disagree with that. Beef and poultry (at least the one you get in the supermarket) production is in the hand of a few big corporations nowadays. For example there are only two companies which supply all the broilers for entire country. When you opt for grass-fed meat, well that's a little bit granola like then (though I don't mind that stigma in that case).
However, you're right with Nestle & Co, they should have their problems with low-carb.

[mrfreddy]

When you opt for grass-fed meat, well that's a little bit granola like then (though I don't mind that stigma in that case).


ha ha, but the only reason I can afford to buy grass-fed beef is because I work for a large corporation....

[eve25]

i gained 100 pounds the year i started eating meat after 7 years vegetarian. dont really know why, maybe i messed up my metabolism or maybe i just do better as a vegetarian.
i still sometimes consider going back but my heart wont be in it like before so i know it'll never last.

(hmmm...now i wonder if i am a type A??????)

[quax]

ha ha, but the only reason I can afford to buy grass-fed beef is because I work for a large corporation....

Good one !!! Well, you're right, but on the other hand I've learned to appreciate a good (cheap) grass-fed roast much more than a feedlot -T-Bone. Once a week I have deliciuos liver ($2.90/lb), and ground beef for $3.50/lb isn't that expensive either. You could get one side with all cuts for $4/lb which doesn't seem too expensive (and when you have enough freezer space). Of course, it's generally more hassle to obtain.

[ItsTheWooo]

Haha what a fun article to read. I hope the writer didn't associate eating meat with blood type, which I think is BS. My mom is a vegan too (due to her religous beliefs) and while she has lost a lot of weight, she looks unhealthy and pale all the time.

I agree it was fun. Also agree it could have done very nicely without the references to fad diets and celebrities :lol: .

Seriously, save for the anemia/malnourishment bit... her experiences remind me of my carb days. I'm so glad to be on low carb.

[kwikdriver]

I have to disagree with that. Beef and poultry (at least the one you get in the supermarket) production is in the hand of a few big corporations nowadays. For example there are only two companies which supply all the broilers for entire country.

Meat is a commodity, and the margins on commodities are low. The big bucks are made on refined, brand name foods that people will pay a premium for. For example, I can buy a bag of generic sandwich cookies for a buck - or I can buy Oreos for $2.99 or whatever. Is it really 200% more expensive to produce and market Oreos? I've eaten fast food maybe twice in the past 6 months; I used to literally live on it; as a result, my food bill went from about $500-$600 a month to about $120. Really, once you step outside the world of manufactured foods, I bet the amount of profit food corporations make on you goes way, way down.

[ItsTheWooo]

The blood type diet is nonsense.
Let's use some critical thinking here people. Why would blood type neatly translate into an exact dietary need? I understand the logic; certain blood types evolved under certain environmental pressures which affect metabolism today. Still this does not account for genetic mixing. If you take a blonde haired, curly haired, tanned skinned, blue eyed mom and a red haired, pin-straight, green eyed pale skinned dad, the child will be a mix of those traits.

For example, my grandpa is a staunch anglo wasp; english and german. From head to toe - broad nose, small jaw, etc... and even the stereotypical personality (introverted, reserved, dispassionate, intellectual). He married an algerian woman - tanned skinned, dark curly hair, Mediterranean looking. Her personality was also stereotypical; "firery", strong, very extroverted, a social people person. Polar opposites to say the least.
They had 3 daughters (one of which is my mother). All are a mix of these traits and boy are they interesting! My mother got dad's personality exactly (there isn't a trace of mom in her personality wise), as well as much of his bone structure and appearance (thin pin straight hair, sharp widows peak, strong pronounced english/german bone structure with high cheekbones and the like). Her coloring, though, is just like her mother - tanned skin, dark brown eyes and dark hair.
Now for a stark contrast, look at her sister. Her sister has hair as blonde as sand, pale green eyes, and very pale skin. HOWEVER much of her actual appearance is like mother. She has very very curly hair (kinky/curly like mom), and her personality is exactly like her mom.

SO you see, genes mix. If you look at my mom or her sister you can't say "oh she's the anglo one, and she's the arab one" because they are both.

In other words, even if we assume there was at one point in time a strong link between diet and blood type, the odds are that link is gone today. I'm sure there are lots of o's who can tolerate dairy and grain, for example, because of blood type mixing.

Now if the authors of these books have evidence that blood type is a direct result of genes that control metabolism, that's another story. But seeing as they can barely even provide evidence for the foundation of their diet (that blood type evolved with diet and is a "marker" for metabolic tolerance in ancient populations)... I doubt they could take the next step and prove that blood type is a direct RESULT/link with metabolism making it relevant on the individual level.


Or, here's another thing to consider. If it were true that all blood types needed to eat a certain diet, this would be easily verified. The diet book authors (who are getting rich off this nonsense) would conduct experiments which verify their hypothesis.
Now this doesn't mean the scientific community would accept it; after all look at the wealth of positive info about low carb, yet everyone ignores it. Still, the studies would BE there for those who wish to promote this. As far as I know, there are no such studies. Why? Because the authors of these books damn well know what they are selling is the nutritional version of astrology.

[ItsTheWooo]

There are a lot of people who are very committed to a vegetarian lifestyle. It's PC, but it's also a bit counter-culture.

I think LC is the ultimate in counter-culture, because most all popular and recognized authorities decry it. Maybe if it was sold as the next new anti-establishment diet it would hold more appeal to the great number of anti-'s out there.

I agree.
However a counter culture trend is, by definition, always hypocritical bs. Think about what the phrase is saying: "a trend against trends". LOL. Sometimes, even at 23, I feel so old because I cannot and never could relate to young people well.

LC isn't truely a counter culture trend because there aren't enough "cool people" who are doing it. Or in other words, when the hip kids are doing it and the adults don't understand it, you've got a counter-culture movement. OTOH everyone who low carbs is usually over 30 and pretty much unconcerned with being perceived fashionably. My sister works in a restaurant as a waitress; she said the only people who ordered the low carb dishes were old. LC is very very "uncool".

[Dodger]

The blood type diet has sold many books, all of which had no scientific basis for their assertions.

[kwikdriver]

The blood type diet is nonsense.
Let's use some critical thinking here people. Why would blood type neatly translate into an exact dietary need? I understand the logic; certain blood types evolved under certain environmental pressures which affect metabolism today. Still this does not account for genetic mixing. If you take a blonde haired, curly haired, tanned skinned, blue eyed mom and a red haired, pin-straight, green eyed pale skinned dad, the child will be a mix of those traits.

By that reasoning, blood type itself should have gone away, as all the types just mixed together over the millenia.



There actually is some science behind it. I was looking at this site (http://www.acu-cell.com/btd.html), and found this:

There are some known blood type / disease-risk associations, such as pernicious anemia, diabetes, or certain types of cancer being slightly more prevalent with Type A compared to Type O individuals, while in contrast to Type A, Type O individuals have a marginally higher incidence of ulcers / H. Pylori infections. Types O and B also have greater susceptibility to infectious diseases such as scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, or the bubonic plague, while Type A shows greater susceptibility to the smallpox virus, and it is more prone to blood clotting. Blood-sucking insects (that carry diseases) prefer Type O blood.

I'm Type O. I can't function at all on a carby diet; never could -- I've been obese every day of my life. Biting insects love me, always have; I complained about it to a doctor once, and he knew Type Os were favored by insects. I have treatment-resistant ulcers. It certainly sounds like me. Of course, I'm just one person, so it could be just random. But if these diseases and so on discriminate based on blood type, why couldn't there be subtle chemical differences between the blood types that make one kind of diet preferable to another, based on blood type? I ain't buying into it, mind you, but I'm not going to entirely discount it without evidence, either.

[ItsTheWooo]

It's also counterculture because it really defies the ability of large corporations to cash in on it. It will never get the granloa-type vibe that veganism has, but then LC is not a religion, and almost nobody does it for ethical reasons. Veganism (doesn't it even sound religious?) is trumpeted more for its philosophical and ethical aspects than anything else.

I have yet to see any individual try to promote low carb for reasons other than it seems to be a healthy way to eat. No "I don't eat it if it has a face" kind of ethical pushes. Just "I'm losing weight and I feel good" kind of things.

I've seen some people really into LC eating for spiritual purposes - the westonaprice.org crowd. There seems to be an element in the LC population that eats LC partly because it represents the concept of "natural & simple living" - to them, eating LC means eating the way your ancestors ate: traditional, nourishing foods of fat and meat. It conjures emotional feelings that give them the warm fuzzies. It makes them feel nurtured and strong to hold this belief, isolated from any observable increase in physical health.

That is just as much an emotional thing like veganism (there is no objective benefit or validity for the belief we LCers hold that eating like a hunter/gatherer or a "caveman" or "paleolithic" is empowering or spiritually nurturing). I've seen lots of people on the LC communities like that. They enjoy the fanciful notion that they are eating a primitive diet like the cavemen or hunter-gatherers. It feels "real" and "empowering".

Though I recognize the tendency, I admit even I feel this way a little bit (and I'm not into the whole paleo thing either *hug splenda and atkins bars*). I think every LCer must, at least a little.

[ItsTheWooo]

By that reasoning, blood type itself should have gone away, as all the types just mixed together over the millenia.

I'm Type O. I can't function at all on a carby diet; never could -- I've been obese every day of my life. Biting insects love me, always have; I complained about it to a doctor once, and he knew Type Os were favored by insects. I have treatment-resistant ulcers. It certainly sounds like me. Of course, I'm just one person, so it could be just random. But if these diseases and so on discriminate based on blood type, why couldn't there be subtle chemical differences between the blood types that make one kind of diet preferable to another, based on blood type? I ain't buying into it, mind you, but I'm not going to entirely discount it without evidence, either.
Perhaps there is some correlation between blood type and metabolism.
I bet it is weak, and definitely not causative/symptomatic on a genetic level. It's probably just correlation, like people from latin america tend toward dark skin. That doesn't mean if I have kids in latin america they will have dark skin, and it doesn't mean all dark skinned people are from latin america, you know what I mean? Ultimately it's just a correlation; there may be a reason for it (people from latin america probably have dark skin for a reason), but it is so sketchy as to be meaningless in any real world way. In other words, I'm sure there are lots and lots of carb-normal type O's and many diabetic A's. Even if proportionally more of the carb sensitive are O and more of the carb normal are A, it's likely a slight difference.

For example, I know lots of carb sensitive people who exacerbate over the paradox of their blood type and their diets - "but I'm supposed to be a vegetarian!" That's not helpful.
In fact the only people who seem to be helped by the diet books are those who get the "moderate diet" OR "low carb diet" results. I don't think I've read one review where it said "wow I was told to eat vegetarian and I feel WAY better!"
This leads me to believe we have a lot more in common than we think; blood type or no blood type we aren't supposed to eat lots of carbs, humans in general do better eating meat and fat.

Personally speaking I'm like you - insects love me. I get bit up terribly.
Been chubby since birth, fat since childhood (EXCEPT a few month period when I was 6 and placed on a restricted carb diet by my cousin; that was nice, I remember her telling my mom that it was OK to eat more chicken in spaghetti sauce (which I loved) and contrary to prevailing dietary advice I shouldn't be encouraged to eat naked pasta (which I hated)).
I've been obese since about maybe age 9 or 10?
No history of ulcers, though :)
I don't know my blood type. If it turns out I'm not an O, I wouldn't be shocked and really wouldn't care at all.

[Dodger]

There actually is some science behind it. I was looking at this site (http://www.acu-cell.com/btd.html), and found this: There actually is some science behind it.
Quote:
There are some known blood type / disease-risk associations, such as pernicious anemia, diabetes, or certain types of cancer being slightly more prevalent with Type A compared to Type O individuals, while in contrast to Type A, Type O individuals have a marginally higher incidence of ulcers / H. Pylori infections. Types O and B also have greater susceptibility to infectious diseases such as scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, or the bubonic plague, while Type A shows greater susceptibility to the smallpox virus, and it is more prone to blood clotting. Blood-sucking insects (that carry diseases) prefer Type O blood.
Fun and games with statistics is not science. In any statistical analysis, there will always be one group that shows a higher/lower difference from the other groups. That is why there are lots of newpaper articles about a month that has a higher/lower rate of something than any other month. There will always be a month that shows to be higher or lower than the others. It means nothing and has no significance.

Mosquitos have no way of knowing your blood type until they have sucked your blood. Smallpox is not spread by mosquitoes. Assembling together a both of meaningless statistics and random unconnected facts does not equate to a scientific analysis.

[kwikdriver]

Mosquitos have no way of knowing your blood type until they have sucked your blood.

Mosquitos use smell to pick their victims, primarily from sweat. How do you know that the sweat of different blood types doesn't smell different?

Smallpox is not spread by mosquitoes.

You're kidding! Dang, I'm sorry I said it did! Wait, I didn't say it did, neither did the link I provided, so I suppose I'm not sorry after all.

Assembling together a both of meaningless statistics and random unconnected facts does not equate to a scientific analysis.


What, besides your opinion, made them meaningless?

[Dodger]

Mosquitos use smell to pick their victims, primarily from sweat. How do you know that the sweat of different blood types doesn't smell different? Everything I have read about mosquitoes mentions that they are attracted by the carbon dioxide that animals exhale. for example http://altnature.com/library/Mosquitoes.htm

You're kidding! Dang, I'm sorry I said it did! Wait, I didn't say it did, neither did the link I provided, so I suppose I'm not sorry after all. Perhaps it was this reference you provided that linked moquitoes to small pox. Types O and B also have greater susceptibility to infectious diseases such as scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, or the bubonic plague, while Type A shows greater susceptibility to the smallpox virus, and it is more prone to blood clotting. Blood-sucking insects (that carry diseases) prefer Type O blood.
What, besides your opinion, made them meaningless? As I have worked as a quality/reliability engineer for over 30 years, I feel that I have a great grasp of statistics and whether or not they are meaningful. Such statements as "marginally higher" make it easy to say that the statistics are meaningless.

[kwikdriver]

Everything I have read about mosquitoes mentions that they are attracted by the carbon dioxide that animals exhale. for example http://altnature.com/library/Mosquitoes.htm.

From your link:

Here’s how they do it. Scientist have known for some time that mosquitoes sense carbon dioxide in the air. Not only do they sense it they home in on certain chemicals carried in that carbon dioxide. It’s called a carbon dioxide signature.

Also from your link:

Ever wonder why the mosquitoes bite you and not the guy next to you? They are attracted to certain chemicals in the carbon dioxide being released from your body and the guy next to you doesn't have as much of these chemicals in his carbon dioxide as you do.

So how do you know that the "carbon dioxide signature" of a Type O isn't different than that of a Type A?


Perhaps it was this reference you provided that linked moquitoes to small pox.

The part you quoted not only didn't say mosquitoes had anything to do with smallpox, it implies the exact opposite. If Type Os get bitten by mosquitoes more often, but Type As have higher incidences of smallpox...?

I have worked as a quality/reliability engineer for over 30 years, I feel that I have a great grasp of statistics and whether or not they are meaningful. Such statements as "marginally higher" make it easy to say that the statistics are meaningless.

"Making it easy" doesn't mean it's correct. Without seeing the actual data, no one can accurately dismiss the correlation as "meaningless."

[kmct10]

You're right about veganism - it's not science-based, but philosophy and ethics-based.

Regarding throwing cigarettes in the street, I guess she could have avoided the street, but when kicking a bad habit, the first step is to stop worshiping the item. It can be extremely liberating to pour whole bottles of alcohol down the drain or on the ground, rip cigarettes to pieces, THROW OUT or FLUSH leftover noodles, bread, cookies, birthday/party cakes and ice creams. Step on them if necessary.

Realize and teach others that leftover food DOES NOT have to be eaten. Starving people in China notwithstanding, teach people by example to stop idolizing all leftover food, especially if it is cheap, sugary carbs. Show them what is garbage and what isn't. It's our first step to breaking cheap carbs' hold on us, and their manufacturers.

[kbfunTH]

I may be missing something here... what's the advantage of grass fed beef? My family has been in the cattle business (200 head.. cow/calf operation) my entire life. Our cattle are 100% free grazing, the only benefit I can see is they are spread out over a larger area compared to the ones in a feed lot. Feed lot cattle aren't usually kept that way for very long and are usually fed a ration of some type of hay.

[quax]

I may be missing something here... what's the advantage of grass fed beef? My family has been in the cattle business (200 head.. cow/calf operation) my entire life. Our cattle are 100% free grazing, the only benefit I can see is they are spread out over a larger area compared to the ones in a feed lot. Feed lot cattle aren't usually kept that way for very long and are usually fed a ration of some type of hay.

In short: the production methods have great influence on the nutritional value of the meat. Grassfed beef is much richer in these beneficial fatty acids like omega-3 and CLA. For a literature review see here:

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html

or see here:

http://www.eatwild.com/articles/youare.html
http://www.eatwild.com/news2.html
http://www.eatwild.com/farmers.html
http://www.eatwild.com/health.html

This radio interview is also quite interesting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1140999

as well as this BBC radio programme (which deals generally with modern animal farming)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/animalfarm.shtml

I'm working in agriculture myself and a while ago I had a chance to see one of these new beef productions plants in real (~15,000 head). This has nothing to do anymore with a ranch, this is a factory. I'm not against progress (otherwise I would be unemployed) but I think there we're heading in a wrong direction.

[seyont]

Omega-3's and CLA are the advantage for the consumer.

The advantage for the farmer under MIG should be lower costs and you build your soil. But it's a big mindset change. Feedlots are easier.

The advantage for society should be no petroleum used for fertilizer and trucking corn into a central feed lot. Less erosion, less run-off, etc. No mad-cow.

[Trinsdad]

i gained 100 pounds the year i started eating meat after 7 years vegetarian. dont really know why, maybe i messed up my metabolism or maybe i just do better as a vegetarian.
i still sometimes consider going back but my heart wont be in it like before so i know it'll never last.

(hmmm...now i wonder if i am a type A??????)

No, you just had a very low metabolism do to the low calories in vegetables.

You must have increased your caloric intake by roughly 1,000 calories a day to gain 2 pounds a week. 3500 calories = 1lb of fat

To remedy that lower your calories by 500 and increase your exercise to = 500 additional calories a day. Bye bye weight..

[bsheets]

Since I'm an A, the blood type diet theory is always in the back of my mind.
Even though I was a veg for a year and did alright until I cut out dairy. I became incredibly thin and anemic, I lost so much muscle.
But even still, whenever LC becomes challenging or gross to me there's always that "well you're an A maybe you shouldn't eat meat."
It haunts me.

There's always that struggle going on in my head about it.
Weird, I know.
I'm an AB and feel just as good on a completely vegetarian diet as on a meat-based one. I used to be vegetarian by taste choices, not by any strict plan. Would have meat whenever I craved it - about once every 3 weeks. Not so good on the waistline I must admit.

e

[kyrasdad]

Meat is a commodity, and the margins on commodities are low. The big bucks are made on refined, brand name foods that people will pay a premium for. For example, I can buy a bag of generic sandwich cookies for a buck - or I can buy Oreos for $2.99 or whatever. Is it really 200% more expensive to produce and market Oreos? I've eaten fast food maybe twice in the past 6 months; I used to literally live on it; as a result, my food bill went from about $500-$600 a month to about $120. Really, once you step outside the world of manufactured foods, I bet the amount of profit food corporations make on you goes way, way down.

Yeah, that's what I meant. We certainly give revenue to large concerns eating low carb, but not as much. We're low profit.

(I don't even mean to sound all pinko or anything, I like profit as much as the next guy, I just don't intend to dispense any to makers of cookies).

[kmct10]

I may be missing something here... what's the advantage of grass fed beef? My family has been in the cattle business (200 head.. cow/calf operation) my entire life. Our cattle are 100% free grazing, the only benefit I can see is they are spread out over a larger area compared to the ones in a feed lot. Feed lot cattle aren't usually kept that way for very long and are usually fed a ration of some type of hay.

The advantage of grass-fed beef is really the DIS-advantage of grain-fed beef. We once thought that grain-fed meant better nutrition, so it was preferred. Now we see that grain-fed basically means HIGH-CARB fed beef. So, the beef have the same symptoms as a human on a high-carb diet, namely meat which is loaded with highly saturated fat. So if you are a low-carber eating grain-fed, you are eating "high-carb" beef, defeating your purpose, and the cattle isn't too healthy either. Grass-fed results in leaner meats, and is obviously the cattle's natural preference as well.

[kbfunTH]

The advantage of grass-fed beef is really the DIS-advantage of grain-fed beef. We once thought that grain-fed meant better nutrition, so it was preferred. Now we see that grain-fed basically means HIGH-CARB fed beef. So, the beef have the same symptoms as a human on a high-carb diet, namely meat which is loaded with highly saturated fat. So if you are a low-carber eating grain-fed, you are eating "high-carb" beef, defeating your purpose, and the cattle isn't too healthy either. Grass-fed results in leaner meats, and is obviously the cattle's natural preference as well.

... no offense, but I'm disagreeing.

[eepobee]

i agree that grass-fed beef is healthier than grain-fed beef, but for a different reason. the omega 6:3 ratio of grain-fed is as much as 20:1, whereas grass-fed ratios are about 0.16:1. i don't believe saturated fat is unhealthy in any way.

[kmct10]

That was my understanding (from Dr. Mercola?) for which I suppose I stand corrected. Saturated fat may not be harmful, but I do find it very interesting that grain-fed beef is basically beef on a high-carb diet, and why would we want to eat unhealthy beef if we don't have to? It just strikes me as important that high-carb can be no better diet for animals than for humans, and is therefore abusive for us to put them on it. I don't know if animals get diabetes, or perhaps they don't live long enough to develop it.

[eepobee]

we have to remember that ruminants naturally exist on a diet of carbs (cellulose from grass), so we can't apply the same science to their diets. however, it does appear that grains are not healthy or proper for these animals.

[seyont]

Ah, but we can apply the same science to their diets. When we say 'low-carb' we're really saying low grains, low starches, and low sugars. There is no limit to real vegetables.

Green stuff- spinach, broccoli, grass, algae- is where Omega-3's come from. Compare beef and broccoli in the USDA database. Wild fish and grass-fed cows eat this stuff all day and concentrate it for us. We can't eat that much.

If cows or fish are fed grain, they are getting very little green-age and thus very little omega-3's. That ratio is passed on to us.

[eepobee]

yes, they shouldn't eat grains, but the metabolism of ruminant is very different from ours. for starters, they're herbivores, not omnivores.

[Nancy LC]

They could do with cows like they're doing with chickens and feed 'em flax to get more omega-3's to us.

[quax]

They could do with cows like they're doing with chickens and feed 'em flax to get more omega-3's to us.

But then we might as well take fish oil capsules. Chicken by the way are omnivores and fattening them with flax is not really natural either. Proper "free-range" poultry (hard to get :( ) has a natural omega-3 content. By now we only know that omega-3 is beneficial (even essential) but in a few years research may show that it is only beneficial when it is consumed in concert with some other compounds found in meat. 15 years ago no one thought about the importance of CLA either. Humans thrived very well on meat with a natural composition, I don't see any reason why we should deviate from that. I mean, the introduction of highly processed food should show us clearly what effects "artificial" food has on us. And in my opinion fattening animals with a diet wich is not appropriate for the species in question, renders the resulting meat "artificial". Increasing just one factor/component may do more harm than help.

[Nancy LC]

I think chickens get their omega-3's from insects, when left to their own devices. When my parents had chickens they used to eat the earwigs and snails with great gusto and enjoyment. Now there's a vastly overlooked source of omega-3's....

I'm not sure if its really feasible to grass feed all beef, do we have that much grassland out there? It'd probably drive the cost of beef sky high and keep people with limited incomes from enjoying it.

But then we might as well take fish oil capsules.
Uh... I do that. :D

[quax]

I think chickens get their omega-3's from insects, when left to their own devices. When my parents had chickens they used to eat the earwigs and snails with great gusto and enjoyment. Now there's a vastly overlooked source of omega-3's

Too my knowledge they get it mainly from herbs and grasses. However, wherever they get it from, bugs are an important part of their diet. I'm always kinda' puzzled when I see these slogans like "all grain-fed" or "fed only vegetarian diet" on the egg carton.

I'm not sure if its really feasible to grass feed all beef, do we have that much grassland out there? It'd probably drive the cost of beef sky high and keep people with limited incomes from enjoying it.

1. Let’s be realistic, the whole world won’t turn into health conscious low carber. Grass-fed meat will always be only a small segment of the market. The market has become too concentrated (about 65% of the U.S. beef production is in the hand of four big corporations) hampering any bigger scale change.

2.However, despite that gloomy outlook, have a look at the following facts: (i) the great, great majority of the global farmland is actually pastureland, since the most of the soils are too poor to be cropped with field crops. (ii) about 35% of the global beef production is pasture-based: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, 50% of Australia, New Zealand have pasture-based production systems. (iii) the two top agricultural producers in the world, the EU and the U.S., in an attempt to reduce over-production, pay farmers now to take out land from the production. About 90% of this land becomes pasture-/grassland (since this is usually the less fertile land) [if someone is interested in that issue, check out this interesting NPR radio programme: Reforms (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4748568) ]

3. In an earlier posting I already pointed out that I don’t find the “high-cost argument” valid. Firstly, you get a higher quality product. Secondly, you can cut back the cost by eating more roasts, ground-beef, liver (simply cheaper cuts) or by stocking up your freezer ($4 /lb when you buy one side isn’t that expensive, given the high (nutritional) quality you get). Furthermore the reason why grain-fed beef is fairly cheap is because of the high subsidies for corn. You actually pay twice: in the supermarket and with your tax dollar. Thirdly, at the moment demand for grass-fed meat is higher than the supply which naturally increases price. Finally, as an agricultural scientist I’m not against progress at all. Of course, we’ll have to improve the pasture based production systems. Many small pasture-based family farms came with very smart production systems (on their own) which are well adapted to their local conditions. If we spent a little bit of the billions of subsidies which go into corn (depending on the drought conditions between $2 and $8 billion per year) into research for pasture-based farming, I’m sure we could come up with higher yields.

I’ve talked mainly about beef here. I know too little about pork, poultry and lamb production systems and therefore do not really dare too have a solid opinion on these.

Uh... I do that. :D

Well, I made my Mom take these as well. She would never ever spend 50% more on the same cut of meat. Very $-(in her case EURO)-conscious. But she has no problems on spending $20/month for the pills. Please explain me this logic :confused:

[kbfunTH]

Optimum protein for cattle is around 12-14%. This is roughly the same for silage, forage, hay crop or specialty feeds. A high carbohydrate diet is avoided as it leads to certain health risks.

All cattle, whether farm raised or finished out in a feedlot are vaccinated against several bovine specific diseases.