What's so bad about eating red meat?

jh79 · 29-09-2014 9:48pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes.

How? Based on what evidence ?

moc moc a moc · 29-09-2014 9:51pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Only 65g?! Wat

Sure you'd practically breathe that in walking past a farm

Bruno26 · 29-09-2014 9:55pm

jh79 wrote: »

How? Based on what evidence ?

It's fairly simple. Cattle like humans are designed to eat real food. In the case of cattle that is grass. Anything different impedes the natural process.

deadlybuzzman · 29-09-2014 9:56pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

I see who paid for that study! Very impartial indeed.

Unless it's from a very reputable source where there's less of a chance they were bankrolled by a vested interest, presume every 'study' is working backwards from a desired goal.

jh79 · 29-09-2014 9:58pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

It's fairly simple. Cattle like humans are designed to eat real food. In the case of cattle that is grass. Anything different impedes the natural process.

Research to date doesn't support your theory.

Bruno26 · 29-09-2014 10:01pm

jh79 wrote: »

Research to date doesn't support your theory.

The research reaches the result industry wants.

jh79 · 29-09-2014 10:06pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

The research reaches the result industry wants.

Strange how the grass fed industry can't get the result they want.

Bruno26 · 29-09-2014 10:11pm

jh79 wrote: »

Strange how the grass fed industry can't get the result they want.

Not much need for research when cattle are living the way they've lived for a few thousand years.

Call Me Jimmy · 29-09-2014 10:14pm

It's an interesting question about the lives and health of animals affecting the nutritional value of the meat.
I would like to know if there is a notable difference nutritionally, it seems like a very simple test.

jh79 · 29-09-2014 10:22pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It's an interesting question about the lives and health of animals affecting the nutritional value of the meat.
I would like to know if there is a notable difference nutritionally, it seems like a very simple test.

No significant effect it seems.

Bruno26 · 29-09-2014 10:35pm

jh79 wrote: »

Not a study, a review of other studies. So are they wrong?

This is what the crowd who put that study together think of the truthful Michael Pollan.

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2010/11/michael-pollan-backlash-beef-advocacy

jh79 · 29-09-2014 10:48pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

This is what the crowd who put that study together think of the truthful Michael Pollan.

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2010/11/michael-pollan-backlash-beef-advocacy

Doesn't explain why researchers can find no significant effect on the nutrients content of differently reared meat.

Why not link to the research that shows the dangers to humans of beef reared on corn feed?

jh79 · 29-09-2014 10:51pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

The thread is about red meat!
Only saw some of horizon. Did he address how cattle are fed and raised? If not then any conclusions are worthless. Its all about how cattle are fed and their environment.

If studies don't exist that back your theory how could the Horizon program possibly address it?

generic2012 · 30-09-2014 9:48am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Not much need for research when cattle are living the way they've lived for a few thousand years.

Stupid comment. There's always need for research. And cattle have been selectively bred for thousands of years, the cattle we now use for meat are only a few centuries old at the very very most, most of these breeds have been vastly 'improved' for meat production and have changed considerably since then too. They have been bred to thrive in the situations they are put in, that's why you don't milk a limousine cow and you don't get steak from a holstein cow. The animals you're talking about don't exist anymore, or if they do they're not going to be on a dinner plate in Ireland.

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 11:00am

generic2012 wrote: »

Stupid comment. There's always need for research. And cattle have been selectively bred for thousands of years, the cattle we now use for meat are only a few centuries old at the very very most, most of these breeds have been vastly 'improved' for meat production and have changed considerably since then too. They have been bred to thrive in the situations they are put in, that's why you don't milk a limousine cow and you don't get steak from a holstein cow. The animals you're talking about don't exist anymore, or if they do they're not going to be on a dinner plate in Ireland.

Pleasant as always!

The point is if I'm eating beef from a cow that has lived in a field and eaten grass I don't need research to tell me it's good for me. By all means do research into the feedlot cattle pumped with hormones and drugs and fed on corn and covered in their own **** and try to justify why it's as healthy as the former.

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 11:07am

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't explain why researchers can find no significant effect on the nutrients content of differently reared meat.

Why not link to the research that shows the dangers to humans of beef reared on corn feed?

Feedlot beef bad.
Grass fed beef good.

fungie · 30-09-2014 11:54am

The main point from the Horizon doc was that a small amount of lean meat whether once a week or month (or never depending on who they spoke to) is fine. Most of them agreed any more than that was associated with a shorter lifespan and they all pretty much agreed that processed meat was associated with a shorter life.

I do think where it comes from does matter but nowhere near as significantly as the amount consumed. I personally dont eat meat no matter how yummy it is.

jh79 · 30-09-2014 12:41pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Feedlot beef bad.
Grass fed beef good.

Except that isn't true, both are perfectly safe. Small difference in fat levels but not enough to impact your diet.

taidghbaby · 30-09-2014 12:47pm

Jesus Christ Bruno is literally every opinion you have formed from cereal killers?

I mean I watched it, and enjoyed it, and it certainly raises some very thought provoking points, but there is literally no dissenting voices anywhere in it! And I for one am very sceptical when only one side of any argument is presented!

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 1:38pm

taidghbaby wrote: »

Jesus Christ Bruno is literally every opinion you have formed from cereal killers?

I mean I watched it, and enjoyed it, and it certainly raises some very thought provoking points, but there is literally no dissenting voices anywhere in it! And I for one am very sceptical when only one side of any argument is presented!

Your point has zero to do with this thread!

What are you on about? Where was cereal killers mentioned?

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 1:52pm

jh79 wrote: »

Except that isn't true, both are perfectly safe. Small difference in fat levels but not enough to impact your diet.

How could the beef be the same and perfectly healthy when they are fed by completely different methods?

jh79 · 30-09-2014 3:08pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

How could the beef be the same and perfectly healthy when they are fed by completely different methods?

Never said it is the same just that whatever differences there might be are not significant enough to label the meat as unhealthy. Small differences in fat levels and some antioxidants.

If the differences are so obvious then where is the evidence to support this?

Can you explain what you hoped the Horizon program would address in regards the differences in meat quality and feed type?

jh79 · 30-09-2014 3:09pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

How could the beef be the same and perfectly healthy when they are fed by completely different methods?

They are eating corn instead of grass for gods sake.

generic2012 · 30-09-2014 4:05pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Pleasant as always!

The point is if I'm eating beef from a cow that has lived in a field and eaten grass I don't need research to tell me it's good for me. By all means do research into the feedlot cattle pumped with hormones and drugs and fed on corn and covered in their own **** and try to justify why it's as healthy as the former.

If that was your point why didn't you just say that. Why would I try to justify that?

PS. I have a little lol every time you call out someone else for going off topic on a thread.

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 5:17pm

generic2012 wrote: »

If that was your point why didn't you just say that. Why would I try to justify that?

PS. I have a little lol every time you call out someone else for going off topic on a thread.

Not you - industry using research to justify the beef is as good as grass fed.

Glad you're entertained!

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 5:19pm

jh79 wrote: »

They are eating corn instead of grass for gods sake.

Ingesting corn and a lot worse than it. Repeating myself here but cattle are not meant to feed on corn. Grass the only food cattle should be eating.

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 5:25pm

jh79 wrote: »

Never said it is the same just that whatever differences there might be are not significant enough to label the meat as unhealthy. Small differences in fat levels and some antioxidants.

If the differences are so obvious then where is the evidence to support this?

Can you explain what you hoped the Horizon program would address in regards the differences in meat quality and feed type?

I only saw couple mins of horizon. You can't just put all beef in one category. Must say where it came from.

jh79 · 30-09-2014 7:12pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

I only saw couple mins of horizon. You can't just put all beef in one category. Must say where it came from.

You can if there is no significant differences between grass fed and corn fed beef.

You said the Horizon program is irrelevant if they didn't account for feed type, so i'm asking what evidence made you come to this conclusion?

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 7:22pm

jh79 wrote: »

You can if there is no significant differences between grass fed and corn fed beef.

You said the Horizon program is irrelevant if they didn't account for feed type, so i'm asking what evidence made you come to this conclusion?

I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this. Cows should only eat grass.

jh79 · 30-09-2014 7:24pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this. Cows should only eat grass.

So how come there is no difference in meat quality between the two?

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 7:35pm

jh79 wrote: »

So how come there is no difference in meat quality between the two?

There is. Grass is always best for a variety of reasons.

http://foodrevolution.org/blog/the-truth-about-grassfed-beef/

jh79 · 30-09-2014 7:52pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

There is. Grass is always best for a variety of reasons.

http://foodrevolution.org/blog/the-truth-about-grassfed-beef/

Small difference in fat levels as earlier links showed.

Neither are a good source of omega 3 fatty acid.

http://m.beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-ground-beef-no-difference-healthfulness

Tigersliding · 30-09-2014 7:53pm

Two of the most respected nutritional experts in the world recommend grass fed beef over corn fed beef, Chris Kesser and Mark Sisson.I've read there reviews of various studies and can see they have a good understanding of logic and the scientific process.

I generally take there advice on nutrition.

jh79 · 30-09-2014 7:56pm

Tigersliding wrote: »

Two of the most respected nutritional experts in the world recommend grass fed beef over corn fed beef, Chris Kesser and Mark Sisson.I've read there reviews of various studies and can see they have a good understanding of logic and the scientific process.

I generally take there advice on nutrition.

Did they give reasons for their recommendations of grass fed , Bruno26 hasn't provided any.

Tigersliding · 30-09-2014 8:20pm

jh79 wrote: »

Did they give reasons for their recommendations of grass fed , Bruno26 hasn't provided any.

chriskresser.com/why-grass-fed-trumps-grain-fed

Grass fed beef contains 2 to 5 times as much omega 3, more antioxidants and various other vitamins and nutrients in higher amounts.

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 8:45pm

jh79 wrote: »

Did they give reasons for their recommendations of grass fed , Bruno26 hasn't provided any.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-differences-between-grass-fed-beef-and-grain-fed-beef/#axzz3CaE3ofC4

http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/grass-fed-natural-beef.asp

jh79 · 30-09-2014 8:54pm

Tigersliding wrote: »

chriskresser.com/why-grass-fed-trumps-grain-fed

Grass fed beef contains 2 to 5 times as much omega 3, more antioxidants and various other vitamins and nutrients in higher amounts.

These were all covered in the review i linked earlier none of these are significant enough to have an impact on your health

jh79 · 30-09-2014 9:01pm

Tigersliding wrote: »

Two of the most respected nutritional experts in the world recommend grass fed beef over corn fed beef, Chris Kesser and Mark Sisson.I've read there reviews of various studies and can see they have a good understanding of logic and the scientific process.

I generally take there advice on nutrition.

No actual scientific qualifications though from what i can see.

Bruno26 · 30-09-2014 9:11pm

jh79 wrote: »

No actual scientific qualifications though from what i can see.

Ancel Keys was a scientist.

jh79 · 30-09-2014 9:14pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Ancel Keys was a scientist.

What does he have to say on the subject?

generic2012 · 01-10-2014 9:08am

Tigersliding wrote:

Two of the most respected nutritional experts in the world recommend grass fed beef over corn fed beef, Chris Kesser and Mark Sisson.I've read there reviews of various studies and can see they have a good understanding of logic and the scientific process.

They are not respected by people who understand nutrition. They're only 'respected' by people who want what they say to be true.

Bruno26 · 01-10-2014 1:00pm

generic2012 wrote: »

They are not respected by people who understand nutrition. They're only 'respected' by people who want what they say to be true.

Have you evidence to show this to be true?

generic2012 · 01-10-2014 2:35pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Have you evidence to show this to be true?

Until you start providing evidence for some of your claims I think it's wasted on you. If someone asks you for evidence you just repeat your point or give a link to biased website. You obviously don't appreciate evidence because you believe things with no evidence, why would anyone bother giving you evidence? I'll give you a nice quote that every post you make reminds me of;

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

Bruno26 · 01-10-2014 2:48pm

generic2012 wrote: »

Until you start providing evidence for some of your claims I think it's wasted on you. If someone asks you for evidence you just repeat your point or give a link to biased website. You obviously don't appreciate evidence because you believe things with no evidence, why would anyone bother giving you evidence? I'll give you a nice quote that every post you make reminds me of;

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

So that's a no I don't have evidence to show what I said to be true!

Chancer3001 · 01-10-2014 5:32pm

Here's a link to an excellent study into grass fed vs corn fed meat

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/86/12/3575.long

generic2012 · 09-10-2014 8:28pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

So that's a no I don't have evidence to show what I said to be true!

Bruno, Bruno, Bruno

Bruno26 · 09-10-2014 9:23pm

generic2012 wrote: »

Bruno, Bruno, Bruno

Did it take you 8 days to think of that response !

Rough Sleeper · 09-10-2014 10:26pm

Tigersliding wrote: »

Two of the most respected nutritional experts in the world recommend grass fed beef over corn fed beef, Chris Kesser and Mark Sisson.I've read there reviews of various studies and can see they have a good understanding of logic and the scientific process.

I generally take there advice on nutrition.

Is there some sort of weird wordfilter thing going on that substitutes "marketing" for "nutritional?" Because your post makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

Bruno26 · 09-10-2014 10:30pm

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Is there some sort of weird wordfilter thing going on that substitutes "marketing" for "nutritional?" Because your post makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

Do you have evidence to show what they say is incorrect?

generic2012 · 09-10-2014 10:49pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Did it take you 8 days to think of that response !

Did you ever see beetlejuice? Just wanted to see what would happen if I said your name 3 times..

What's so bad about eating red meat?

Comments