Meat debate red hot

[Demi]

The Sunday Times
Australia
By PAUL POTTINGER
26feb06

NUTRITIONISTS may be arguing the merits of various weight-loss diets, but Australian butchers are rubbing their hands with glee.

Since the CSIRO entered the fray – pushing a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet long favoured by stick-thin Hollywood types – the unexpected winner has been the meat industry.
Australians eat more red meat now than at any time in the past 10 years. To the delight of Meat and Livestock Australia, consumer spending on red meat reached $8 billion last financial year, up almost $3 billion on 1998-99.

While Australians consumed about half the beef and a third of the lamb they ate in the 1970s, the resurgence – after a decade of nutritionists pushing chicken and fish – was overdue, as far as producers were concerned.

And butchers aren't complaining, especially purveyors of quality free-range and organic meats. Because while we may be eating more meat, we're choosier.

"People are heavily into protein, but fat's a thing of the past," said Sean Goodbenough, of Cleavers, which supplies prepackaged organic meat to Coles and Woolworths.

The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet, which advocates eating 1kg of red meat a week, recently sold its 550,000th copy, surpassing The Da Vinci Code on the best-seller lists.

There has been a backlash from experts, particularly to the amount of meat recommended in the CSIRO tome, with leading nutritionist Rosemary Stanton claiming that it contravenes the Federal Government's own dietary advice.

Ms Stanton and others have written to Prime Minister John Howard urging a review, claiming the diet can lead to increased risk of disease, especially bowel cancer.

The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends 65g-100g of lean red meat three to four times a week. The Cancer Council of Australia suggests the same amount.

"If the CSIRO is pushing a high-protein diet, why don't they push chickpeas?" Dr Stanton said.

"They didn't try chickpeas because there wasn't a chickpea sponsor."

Britain's Medical Research Council recently announced it had discovered why a diet rich in red meat seemed to increase bowel-cancer risks.

Diets high in red meat resulted in higher levels of damage to DNA, leaving the genetic code at greater risk of mutating and causing cancer.

But the CSIRO's Manny Noakes, co-author of the current best-seller, said the link between red meat and bowel cancer was infintesimal.

Dr Noakes said red meat was a vital part of the low-fat, higher-protein diet and also provided more iron and B12 vitamins than other sources.

And just as important in this diet-obsessed society, Dr Noakes pointed to new research that showed 60 per cent of women who started the CSIRO diet three years ago had maintained their weight loss.


http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,18271367%255E949,00.html

[emmy207]

I went for years not eating red meat and I feel so much better now that I do eat it.
One of the things that pisses me of about the whole Gillian McKeith approach is she is anti red-meat.

[Rosebud]

"If the CSIRO is pushing a high-protein diet, why don't they push chickpeas?" Dr Stanton said.

"They didn't try chickpeas because there wasn't a chickpea sponsor."
This from a woman who used to advertise white bread on TV. :rolleyes:

Roz :rose:

[bigpeach]

When I hear 'experts' talking about the dangers of red meat, I start to fume. None of the 'studies' they cite differentiate between high-density-feed-lot-grain-fed-hormone-overloaded cattle beef and natural, organic grass-fed beef.
Also, none of the studies I have seen measured or controlled trans-fats, and the obvious concern with such a study is that, if someone is eating a burger, fries, and coke every day, and goes on to develop heart disease, how can one determine that only the saturated fat from beef (factory farm at that) is to blame?

[kyrasdad]

the obvious concern with such a study is that, if someone is eating a burger, fries, and coke every day, and goes on to develop heart disease, how can one determine that only the saturated fat from beef (factory farm at that) is to blame?
Because one has a predetermined outcome in mind.

[Whoa182]

When I hear 'experts' talking about the dangers of red meat, I start to fume. None of the 'studies' they cite differentiate between high-density-feed-lot-grain-fed-hormone-overloaded cattle beef and natural, organic grass-fed beef.
Also, none of the studies I have seen measured or controlled trans-fats, and the obvious concern with such a study is that, if someone is eating a burger, fries, and coke every day, and goes on to develop heart disease, how can one determine that only the saturated fat from beef (factory farm at that) is to blame?

As mentioned in the article, there was a study done in a controlled envirionment that shows the group that eats the highest amount of red meat results in more DNA damage, i'm not sure if it actually matters what type of red meat it is either? Natural, processed, all the same when it comes to potential dna damage from compounds released. They had a few groups eating a certain amount of red meat. Energy consumption I think was the same for all groups, the ones eating the highest red meat would have probably had the lowest intake from carbs also. I don't think anyone here had access to the full article did they? I'm sure you can send a quick email to ask a few questions to one the person who led the study.

[bigpeach]

LOL, using two sentences of an article and declaring the study was done in a "controlled environment." You might want to find out about the details of the study before you jump to the conclusion. As I logically mentioned, one could get a lot of red meat eating fast food combos for every meal and having a gallon of ice cream each day. You can't logically deduce from a diet like that what the real culprit is. Thus, we need the details of the study, and the details need to prove that the only variable in the diets of those studied was red meat. Now, tell me how likely it is that all of those studied were kept in a clinical environment, having access only to the food permitted by the study?
The DNA damage and cancer link is also still only a hypothesis. While it is true that cancerous cells have damaged DNA, there is no proof that previously damaged DNA in cells is more likely to reproduce (through mitosis) cancerous cells.
I should show that study to my vegan cousin that has a colostomy bag. Perhaps if she had eaten beef, only her DNA would have been damaged, instead of her colon being devoured by tumors.

[grandpa]

Using the same logic, if the whole group ate high sugar, but one sub group ate low fat and the other high fat, and the high fat group had more cardio problems would it be correct to target fat as the problem?

Forget DNA code, I want to know if the high trans fat damages the Da Vinci code ;)

[bigpeach]

Found the BBC article about the study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4662934.stm

Last year the Dunn team published a study suggesting the chance of developing the disease was a third higher for people who regularly ate more than two portions per day of cooked red meat compared with those who ate less than one portion per week.

Holy christ. I'm 6'7" with a large frame and don't eat 14+ red meat meals per week.

Professor Annie Anderson, expert advisor to Bowel Cancer UK, said: "The new data not only provides further evidence of risk but also flags the importance of what we eat with our meat - for example, there is further risk with low fibre intakes.

"Current data on eating trends suggests we are eating more fast foods, which we know are high in calories and fat and implicated as a cause of obesity and diabetes, but such cuisine may also be the very type of meals (high in meat - and meat products - and low in vegetables) that also contributes to bowel cancer risk."

A very smart person already alluded to this...

The authors themselves acknowledge that larger-scale, prospective studies are needed to identify how important and robust this suggested mechanism could be

Hmmm. I wonder which incredibly handsome poster made that point earlier in the thread.

[Hellistile]

A huge fast food meal usually contains a large hamburger bun or bagel or dinner roll, extra large order of fries or beans or pasta, a vat of cola, and a piece or two of apple pie/ice cream for dessert, and the poor, thin, beef patty takes all the blame. The old lady was right. "Where's the beef." Would make one laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

[Groggy60]

A low-fat meat diet doesn't sound very healthy.

[CindySue48]

When I hear 'experts' talking about the dangers of red meat, I start to fume. None of the 'studies' they cite differentiate between high-density-feed-lot-grain-fed-hormone-overloaded cattle beef and natural, organic grass-fed beef.
Also, none of the studies I have seen measured or controlled trans-fats, and the obvious concern with such a study is that, if someone is eating a burger, fries, and coke every day, and goes on to develop heart disease, how can one determine that only the saturated fat from beef (factory farm at that) is to blame?I think every report I've read lumps red meat and processed meat together!

I agree tho.....IF red meat is related to any increased risk, then it is because of the way the animal is fed and treated prior to butchering.

[Lessara]

All I know is that I eat beef every day for its my favorite.
My cholesteral is 112. :D My good cholesteral is 55 :D
Any questions? :lol:

[LC FP]

My cholesteral is 112. My good cholesteral is 55
Any questions?

Yeah, what are you doing to raise your total cholesterol?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/499912

[Whoa182]

All I know is that I eat beef every day for its my favorite.
My cholesteral is 112. :D My good cholesteral is 55 :D
Any questions? :lol:

Hi, Did you cholesterol go that low in response to the diet or was it that low before low carbing?

The link that LC FP provided was an article on mortality and low cholesterol, which it seems that low cholesterol is associated with a higher risk of mortality from all causes but many studies have failed to look at any underlying diseases that may be present at the start of the study, they also mention that they didn't take tests that measure albumin levels which i a good predictor of disease and mortality.

I wouldn't get too worried over this, especially if your cholesterol got this low in response to you restricting carbs, otherwise it could be a sign of disease, undernutrition or malnutrition. The good news is that recent studies have shown that if you look at the data more carefully the ones with low cholesterol already have preclinical cancer or other problems such as heavy drinking, smoking or other diseases that could cause low cholesterol. It wouldn't hurt to get some blood tests done though, particularly Hepatic Liver Function panel and Complete Blood Count.

References:

1) Low serum total cholesterol concentrations and mortality in middle aged British men
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/311/7002/409

2) Total Mortality in Middle-Aged Men Is Increased at Low Total and LDL Cholesterol Concentrations in Smokers but Not in Nonsmokers
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/7/2128

[LC FP]

Yeah, what are you doing to raise your total cholesterol?

I said that in jest, but there is some data out there that makes you wonder. The standard response is, as Whoa says, that realy sick people have low cholesterol, due to their disease, weight loss, etcetera, and they skew the averages. I doubt that is a huge effect.

I had a 73 year old guy with mild hypertension but no other risk factors for CAD and a TC of 132 and a HDL of 38. HDL was low, but TC/HDL ratio still pretty good. I had been telling him for years his risk for CAD was low, but of course he had a medium-sized MI and his cath looked terrible, and he had a CABG. The cardiologist didn't give him a statin because his LDL was only 65, less than their infamous cutoff of 70. I emailed the doc and he said he will do some more lipid studies and probably start a statin after that.

Even if low cholesterol is a risk factor, which I'm not convinced of (these are epidemiologic studies), there certainly have been no studies that show raising your cholesterol in that situation would be helpful. Now that would be an interesting grant application proposal!!

[CindySue48]

Yeah, what are you doing to raise your total cholesterol?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/499912
My thought too. Total of 112 is too low....could that be your LDL?