Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What's so bad about eating red meat?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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


  • Options
    #63
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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?


  • Options
    #64
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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?


  • Options
    #65
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.


  • Options
    #66
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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.


  • Options
    #68
    fungie
    Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭fungie


    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.


  • Options
    #69
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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.


  • Options
    #70
    taidghbaby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,746 ✭✭✭taidghbaby


    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!


  • Options
    #71
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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?


  • Options
    #73
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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?


  • Options
    #74
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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.


  • Options
    #75
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    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.


  • Options
    #76
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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!


  • Options
    #77
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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.


  • Options
    #78
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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.


  • Options
    #79
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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?


  • Options
    #80
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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.


  • Options
    #81
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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/


  • Options
    #83
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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


  • Options
    #84
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    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.


  • Options
    #85
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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.


  • Options
    #86
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    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.


  • Options
    #87
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    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


  • Options
    #88
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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


  • Options
    #89
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    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.


  • Options
    #90
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    jh79 wrote: »
    No actual scientific qualifications though from what i can see.

    Ancel Keys was a scientist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Ancel Keys was a scientist.

    What does he have to say on the subject?


Advertisement