Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Sep-30-19, 18:05
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,374
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default There's no need to eat less red or processed meat, group says...

...prompting criticism. [from those with vested interests in scaring you].

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/hear...d-meat-n1060511
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Sep-30-19, 21:11
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,444
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Too many "experts" still stuck in 1990 bashing saturated fat and the meat that contains it. Sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Sep-30-19, 21:13
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,874
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

ah, the controversy continues......
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Sep-30-19, 23:17
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,455
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

Haven't seen the headline: "Eating Bacon Is Just As Harmful As Cigarette Smoking!" for awhile. I think that got debunked as well?

Saturated fats and trans-fats are both labeled as unhealthful by nutritionists because they say: "We don't want to confuse people."
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Oct-01-19, 00:50
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,457
 
Plan: LCHF/IF
Stats: 217/182/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 61%
Location: UK
Default

More on this in the UK:

Red meat row: Major review concludes cancer link is 'weak'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...view-concludes/

Quote:
People should continue eating red and processed meats at current rates because there is no evidence it is dangerous, a controversial new review has concluded.

An international team of researchers has branded the evidence linking the meats with serious health problems such as cancer and heart disease so “weak” there is no need to cut down from the four portions people enjoy on average per week.

Study author Bradley Johnston, associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada, said: "Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease."
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Oct-01-19, 04:32
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,191
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Gina Kolkata at the NYT is having a hard time coming up with an explanation of this study. https://apple.news/AYEEOfBgYQ8eBEwX4YrONqw


Aaron Carroll discusses the impossible task of nutritional studies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/...rss&partner=rss

Last edited by JEY100 : Tue, Oct-01-19 at 04:42.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Oct-01-19, 06:48
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,492
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

From the NYT/Kolata article:
Quote:
“Irresponsible and unethical,” said Dr. Hu, of Harvard, in a commentary published online with his colleagues. Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, he said, but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility.

Nutrition studies, he added, should not be held to the same rigid standards as studies of experimental drugs.

Of course we should not, cuz if we do, we find that eating meat of any kind is benign at worst and beneficial at best. We find this in the famous Bellevue All-Meat Trial. Instead, what is responsible and ethical is to create the weakest kind of evidence, then based on this weak evidence, make Laws that ultimately cause people to get fat, sick and weak.

Accept our nature. Our nature is a) we are exquisitely adapted to eating meat, and b) lying to the greatest number of people for the longest time (and the corollary, being lied to) is one of our favorite passtime. I mean, think of the countless music, theater plays, novels, TV soaps, movies, all of it lies of the first order, and we love it to no end. The only irresponsible and unethical thing here would be to destroy the illusion by telling the truth once in a while.

/sarcasm off
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Oct-01-19, 07:02
HappyLC HappyLC is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,853
 
Plan: Generic low carb
Stats: 212/167/135 Female 66.75
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Long Island, NY
Default

This quote from CNN is quite interesting -

Quote:
Johnston stressed that the new guidance, published Monday in the American College of Physicians' journal "Annals of Internal Medicine," only considered the impact of red meat consumption on human health, excluding such issues as animal rights and the impact of meat consumption on the environment.


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/30/he...ness/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Oct-01-19, 07:23
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,492
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I prefer this quote from that same CNN article:
Quote:
Bradley Johnston, the lead author of the guidelines and co-founder of NutriRECS, said the analysis failed to find "any certainty that eating red meat or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease."

Therefore, the group's new guidelines make a "weak recommendation" based on "low-quality evidence" that most people don't need to reduce their red and processed meat consumption, Johnston said.

"Why would you make a 'weak' recommendation about eating red and processed meat?" asked Stanford School of Medicine nutrition scientist Christopher Gardner. "I'm completely flabbergasted. I'm also really worried about how dangerous this is."

(Side note, my respect for Chris has just dropped)
Why, he asks? The evidence is absent any certainty, therefore we cannot possibly justify any strength of recommendation other than "weak". Consequently, we can safely ignore that recommendation. That's why.

Chris, it's as dangerous as the evidence justifies, which is to say that it is weakly dangerous at worst. You're a scientist, Chris, you should know better than to hyperbole weak evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Oct-01-19, 08:36
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,671
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Chris needs to do one more study. A to Z, Atkins (the real deal, from the book) beat the Zone, Ornish, etc. So he did another study--his idea of a healthful low carb diet merely tied with his idea of a healthful low fat diet. So from this--no low carb advantage? But this isn't a second trial of the same diets, it's a trial of two different diets. I want pork rinds, bacon and butter, up against his broccoli, steamed wild salmon and avocado version of the diet. I would bet that at least on compliance--and that's what Gardner has said in the past was a big determining factor in A to Z--traditional Atkins would win out over the more "virtuous" version.

It's sort of funny that people who would have said that a keto diet or Atkins is relatively untested health wise not that long ago are yet willing to jump to conclusions about just what constitutes the most healthful low carb diet. Other than avoiding trans fats, I have no idea if I'm better off eating butter or olive oil.

More on topic--"processed meat" is a broader class, not a species. It's just meat that's had something done to it, it's a little silly to think that grinding, sausaging, spicing, breading, deep frying, emulsifying, tenderizing, marinating--going on and on, that all of these processes count the same towards health.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Wed, Oct-02-19, 05:35
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,191
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Long article by Dr Bret Scher on DietDoctor. Does evidence support limiting red meat? https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-evi...miting-red-meat
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Oct-02-19, 07:00
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,072
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Thanks, Janet, the Scher article is literally hot off the presses. As usual, very objective in providing findings and grading credibility.

Quote:
"The author’s final conclusion, a dietary recommendation based on NutriRECS Consortium guidelines, is that adults should continue current red meat intake, as reducing consumption is unlikely to benefit our health.

Of note, unlike older studies involving meat, these meta-analyses were not funded by the meat industry, ruling out an obvious potential conflict of interest."

That's good news, as I consume red meat frequently, mostly beef, and find it provides the proteins I require, preserves muscle mass, and can be prepared in many different ways in a variety of satisfying meals. I consume other healthy proteins as well, but beef edges out others in terms of frequency.

And this statement is one of the reasons I trust DietDoctor for providing sound, credible information without an agenda:

Quote:
"You can probably guess where we stand. We have committed ourselves to grading the evidence we cite, believing we should rely on the highest-quality evidence whenever possible. When high-quality evidence isn’t available, then we need to recognize the limitations of weak evidence.

Also, we are committed to making low-carb simple and helping individuals dramatically improve their lives. Therefore, the individualized perspective looks pretty good to us.

Studies aren’t perfect. Science is not as perfect as we would like. But we applaud the authors for focusing on the quality of evidence and an individualized perspective.

Based on the available evidence, we agree. There is no compelling health reason to avoid red meat.

That said, we support those who avoid red meat but want to eat low carb, with resources like vegetarian and pescatarian meal plans and our vegetarian guide.

Both can be healthy. It’s your choice."


So, when we continue to read and watch the news drumbeat related to nutrition, we can, at least for now, feel secure that much of the misinformation about red meat consumption is from a variety of sources with unsubstantiated information, agendas having nothing to do with recommending good human health practices, and some vested interests driven to change the perception of what constitutes healthy foods purely for marketing purposes.

Now, please pass the NY strip . . . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Wed, Oct-02-19, 07:02
s93uv3h s93uv3h is offline
Posts: 1,262
 
Plan: Atkins & IF / TRE
Stats: 000/014.5/015 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Long article by Dr Bret Scher on DietDoctor. Does evidence support limiting red meat? https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-evi...miting-red-meat
one of the closing sentences...
Quote:
Based on the available evidence, we agree. There is no compelling health reason to avoid red meat.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Oct-02-19, 08:43
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,191
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Wed, Oct-02-19, 10:42
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,874
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Heard this news on the radio yesterday.....making for great confusion for most people. There is too much pull between the factions, and the lay people continue to be victimized by it all.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:03.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.