Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

You don't need to eat a huge amount of meat or protein on a paleo diet. Protein should be kept to around 20% of calories. The majority of calories should come from fat. Butter, bacon grease, and heavy cream are some of my staples. Eating nothing but lean steaks all the time will cause stomach upset, because you need that fat to be able to digest the protein and absorb the amino acids. Ketosis is not bad for the body in any way, some of the healthiest native populations (like the masai and inuit) spent nearly their entire lives in ketosis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the digesting meat thing: your body is designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible, and those are the two macronutrients found in meat.

Your body is not designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible. In addition, the paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet (especially low saturated fat) that limits things like butter, eggs, and fatty meats.

Additional long-term considerations that you might want to make on a high red meat, low carb diet:

1) The strong link between red meat intake and cancer.

2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

If you had actually read the studies you are referring to above, rather than just pass on what you've been told, you would see how poor the link between red meat and cancer really is (epidemiological data, too many variables) and the memory study was a joke. The participants only ate low carb for 2 weeks, not enough time for the brain to adjust to using ketones. The attempts to discredit the low carb diet are so pathetic.

In addition, a true paleo diet is not a low fat, or a low saturated fat diet, despite the effort of dolts like cordain to try to make it one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the digesting meat thing: your body is designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible, and those are the two macronutrients found in meat.

Your body is not designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible. In addition, the paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet (especially low saturated fat) that limits things like butter, eggs, and fatty meats.

Additional long-term considerations that you might want to make on a high red meat, low carb diet:

1) The strong link between red meat intake and cancer.

2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

If you had actually read the studies you are referring to above, rather than just pass on what you've been told, you would see how poor the link between red meat and cancer really is (epidemiological data, too many variables) and the memory study was a joke. The participants only ate low carb for 2 weeks, not enough time for the brain to adjust to using ketones. The attempts to discredit the low carb diet are so pathetic.

In addition, a true paleo diet is not a low fat, or a low saturated fat diet, despite the effort of dolts like cordain to try to make it one.

The most recent study on brain functioning and low carb actually shows the opposite of the one mike_wf keeps referring to, and covered a greater span of time, and anyone who has done ketosis knows how important that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was only legumes that were hard to digest? Can you give me a link on nuts and seeds being hard to digest.

Nuts are just very fibrous (something like 10% fiber by nutrient makeup), and they're high in compounds that can act as antinutrients, like tannins and phytic acid.

Nuts like almonds are generally allowed and even advised for paleo diets, but if you think about it, there's no way that a paleo human would have been able to eat more than a couple of nuts a day. A serving size for almonds is 23 nuts, but in order to eat 23 almonds, you would have to first go through 23 fruits. The almonds would then be protected by the hard outer shell, and after being shelled, they would have to be soaked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the digesting meat thing: your body is designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible, and those are the two macronutrients found in meat.

Your body is not designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible. In addition, the paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet (especially low saturated fat) that limits things like butter, eggs, and fatty meats.

Additional long-term considerations that you might want to make on a high red meat, low carb diet:

1) The strong link between red meat intake and cancer.

2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

If you had actually read the studies you are referring to above, rather than just pass on what you've been told, you would see how poor the link between red meat and cancer really is (epidemiological data, too many variables) and the memory study was a joke. The participants only ate low carb for 2 weeks, not enough time for the brain to adjust to using ketones. The attempts to discredit the low carb diet are so pathetic.

In addition, a true paleo diet is not a low fat, or a low saturated fat diet, despite the effort of dolts like cordain to try to make it one.

"The bottom line is that the people who were eating the most red meat had higher colon cancer risk than those eating the least," McCullough tells WebMD. "Very few of these lower-risk people ate no red meat. It is not that we are saying people can never have red meat. But this shows it is important to limit the amount of red meat you eat."

The researchers collected detailed information on the diets of nearly 150,000 men and women aged 50 to 74 living in 21 U.S. states. They collected data in 1982 and 1992-1993, and followed them through the end of August 2001. In that time, 1,667 of the study participants developed colon cancer.

The study accounted for factors that are known to increase colon cancer risk, such as smoking, being overweight, little physical activity, alcohol use, age, and low fiber intake as well as factors known to decrease risk, such as daily aspirin use.

-WebMD

Yeah, that's a poorly constructed study. In addition, there have been numerous studies with similar conclusions. Don't really even know which study you are criticizing for being unscientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the digesting meat thing: your body is designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible, and those are the two macronutrients found in meat.

Your body is not designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible. In addition, the paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet (especially low saturated fat) that limits things like butter, eggs, and fatty meats.

Additional long-term considerations that you might want to make on a high red meat, low carb diet:

1) The strong link between red meat intake and cancer.

2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

If you had actually read the studies you are referring to above, rather than just pass on what you've been told, you would see how poor the link between red meat and cancer really is (epidemiological data, too many variables) and the memory study was a joke. The participants only ate low carb for 2 weeks, not enough time for the brain to adjust to using ketones. The attempts to discredit the low carb diet are so pathetic.

In addition, a true paleo diet is not a low fat, or a low saturated fat diet, despite the effort of dolts like cordain to try to make it one.

"The bottom line is that the people who were eating the most red meat had higher colon cancer risk than those eating the least," McCullough tells WebMD. "Very few of these lower-risk people ate no red meat. It is not that we are saying people can never have red meat. But this shows it is important to limit the amount of red meat you eat."

The researchers collected detailed information on the diets of nearly 150,000 men and women aged 50 to 74 living in 21 U.S. states. They collected data in 1982 and 1992-1993, and followed them through the end of August 2001. In that time, 1,667 of the study participants developed colon cancer.

The study accounted for factors that are known to increase colon cancer risk, such as smoking, being overweight, little physical activity, alcohol use, age, and low fiber intake as well as factors known to decrease risk, such as daily aspirin use.

-WebMD

Yeah, that's a poorly constructed study. In addition, there have been numerous studies with similar conclusions. Don't really even know which study you are criticizing for being unscientific.

Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation? Do you realize that it takes controlled, double-blind placebo clinical studies to determine cause and effect, where all variables can be accounted for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a look at these articles:

http://www.modernforager.com/blog/2008/10/...e-colon-cancer/

http://www.theiflife.com/2008/10/17/why-yo...ong-about-meat/

If you're pressed for time, the first is a better read.

What I'd also like to see are some studies of naturally raised red meat consumption and rates of cancers. If I'm not mistaken, Argentina has the highest per capita consumption of red meat (all of it grass-fed though) and much lower rates of colon and other cancers as compared to the US; I may be recalling incorrectly, feel free to double check.

I don't think it's a good thing to eat an animal on the verge of death caused by what it's eating (a grain based diet actually makes cattle quite ill and wrecks havoc on their digestive system, which is why we administer antibiotics and fatten them up quickly before they die on their own as a result of the toxic diet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a look at these articles:

http://www.modernforager.com/blog/2008/10/...e-colon-cancer/

http://www.theiflife.com/2008/10/17/why-yo...ong-about-meat/

If you're pressed for time, the first is a better read.

What I'd also like to see are some studies of naturally raised red meat consumption and rates of cancers. If I'm not mistaken, Argentina has the highest per capita consumption of red meat (all of it grass-fed though) and much lower rates of colon and other cancers as compared to the US; I may be recalling incorrectly, feel free to double check.

I don't think it's a good thing to eat an animal on the verge of death caused by what it's eating (a grain based diet actually makes cattle quite ill and wrecks havoc on their digestive system, which is why we administer antibiotics and fatten them up quickly before they die on their own as a result of the toxic diet).

Shavingwoes, I'd also be interested in seeing a study concerning naturally raised meat consumption and cancer consumption. As I noted before, grass-fed beef appears to be a lot more nutritious that factory farmed beef. But I'm wondering how applicable these sites you've posted are to the average American, given that the vast majority of beef consumed in the U.S. is grain fed and that grass-fed beef is often quite expensive. I guess it could spur a greater movement towards grass-fed beef.

Overall, however, I don't see anything very convincing that has been posted controverting the strong link between red meat (factory farmed) and colon cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a great argument that refutes the red meat/colon cancer correlation. It cites several studies that actually show the opposite and explains why the studies that supposedly show correlation are flawed. There is no strong link in my opinion between meat and colon cancer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive got one:

Refined-sugar intake and the risk of colorectal cancer in humans.

La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, Dolara P, Bidoli E, Barbone F.

Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche, Mario Negri, Milan, Italy.

The relationship between sugar added to coffee and other hot beverages--as an indicator of taste for sugar and sugar intake outside main meals--and the risk of colorectal cancer was investigated using data from a case-control study conducted in Northern Italy on 953 cases of histologically confirmed colon cancer, 633 of rectal cancer and 2845 controls admitted to hospital for acute, non-neoplastic, non-digestive tract disorders. Compared with subjects who reported adding no sugar to their beverages, the multivariate relative risks (RR) of colon cancer were 1.4 for those adding one spoonful of sugar, 1.6 for those adding 2 spoonful, and 2.0 for those adding 3 or more. The corresponding RRs for rectal cancer were 1.3, 1.5 and 1.4. For combination of colorectal cancer the RRs were 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8. All the trends in risk were significant, and the results were consistent across strata of study centre, sex and age, and were not appreciably modified by allowance for a number of major identified potential distorting factors, including an estimate of total calorie intake. These findings, if confirmed, would suggest that taste for sugar is a relevant indicator of colorectal cancer risk, and could be interpreted either in terms of a role of sugar in colorectal carcinogens, or of a specific influence of even limited amounts of sugar taken outside meals, which may stimulate the proliferation of the bowel epithelium, and hence enhance colorectal carcinogenesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys forgive me as I don't have time to read this whole thread, but I wanted to contribute a quick thought as it's something I've wondered about:

Regarding the whole "red meat is bad" idea -- how do we know that it's not red meat IN THE PRESENCE OF MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF STARCHES/SUGARS/PROCESSED CARBS that is actually damaging?

how are we so sure that red meat ON ITS OWN with vegetables and fruits isn't totally, perfectly healthy?

i think it's an important question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shavingwoes, I'd also be interested in seeing a study concerning naturally raised meat consumption and cancer consumption. As I noted before, grass-fed beef appears to be a lot more nutritious that factory farmed beef. But I'm wondering how applicable these sites you've posted are to the average American, given that the vast majority of beef consumed in the U.S. is grain fed and that grass-fed beef is often quite expensive. I guess it could spur a greater movement towards grass-fed beef.

Overall, however, I don't see anything very convincing that has been posted controverting the strong link between red meat (factory farmed) and colon cancer.

Yes, I am unsure as well about factory farmed meat and cancers. One other factor I'd like to see controlled for in studies is fruit/vegetable consumption. As the previous poster alluded to, especially in the US, there is an underconsumption of good, fibrous vegetables (there is definitely a fair share of non-fibrous ones like potatoes though). A lack of proper bowel movements has also been fairly strongly linked to cancers of the colon/rectum; and we've all heard stories of people on Atkins or some other high-protein low-carb (so low that very few vegetables are allowed) and people becoming constipated or (forgive the expression) "shitting bricks". I wouldn't be surprised if that was the cause behind the cancers rather than the meat itself.

Basically, I think to conclusively relate red meat to cancer there needs to be well-controlled studies eliminating other possible confounders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shavingwoes, I'd also be interested in seeing a study concerning naturally raised meat consumption and cancer consumption. As I noted before, grass-fed beef appears to be a lot more nutritious that factory farmed beef. But I'm wondering how applicable these sites you've posted are to the average American, given that the vast majority of beef consumed in the U.S. is grain fed and that grass-fed beef is often quite expensive. I guess it could spur a greater movement towards grass-fed beef.

Overall, however, I don't see anything very convincing that has been posted controverting the strong link between red meat (factory farmed) and colon cancer.

Yes, I am unsure as well about factory farmed meat and cancers. One other factor I'd like to see controlled for in studies is fruit/vegetable consumption. As the previous poster alluded to, especially in the US, there is an underconsumption of good, fibrous vegetables (there is definitely a fair share of non-fibrous ones like potatoes though). A lack of proper bowel movements has also been fairly strongly linked to cancers of the colon/rectum; and we've all heard stories of people on Atkins or some other high-protein low-carb (so low that very few vegetables are allowed) and people becoming constipated or (forgive the expression) "shitting bricks". I wouldn't be surprised if that was the cause behind the cancers rather than the meat itself.

Basically, I think to conclusively relate red meat to cancer there needs to be well-controlled studies eliminating other possible confounders.

I think we should get the facts straight--the study accounted for other factors (physical exercise, nutrition, etc). And it also mentions that other foods such vegetables and fish might have a protective effect against the carcinogens in red meat. I don't think you're going to get a more scientific study than the one performed by the WHO (which confirmed a previous, large scale study by the American Cancer Society).

For me personally, I'm going to limit my intake of factory raised beef in light of these studies. I'll continue to buy grass fed beef, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'd also like to see are some studies of naturally raised red meat consumption and rates of cancers. If I'm not mistaken, Argentina has the highest per capita consumption of red meat (all of it grass-fed though) and much lower rates of colon and other cancers as compared to the US; I may be recalling incorrectly, feel free to double check.

But what exactly does grain-fed beef have that causes cancer that grass-fed beef doesn't have? Some research indicates that grass-fed beef is higher in nutrients that could potentially protect against cancer, but just because grain-fed beef doesn't contain as much as of these nutrients doesn't mean that it should actually contribute to cancer. Or at least, that's what my logic tells me. Thus, if were are to take on a hypothesis that grain-fed beef contributes to cancer but grass-fed beef doesn't, we would be on the search for compounds that grain-fed beef does contain, rather than ones that it doesn't contain.

I think we should get the facts straight--the study accounted for other factors (physical exercise, nutrition, etc). And it also mentions that other foods such vegetables and fish might have a protective effect against the carcinogens in red meat. I don't think you're going to get a more scientific study than the one performed by the WHO (which confirmed a previous, large scale study by the American Cancer Society).

It took fiber intake and alcohol intake into account, but not sugar intake, total carbohydrate intake, total calorie intake, and as far as I know, it didn't combine different factors to see if the correlation still existed. For example, people who eat more red meat eat more sugar and exercise less, but they only took one factor into account at a time.

We would also have to have access to the full study to make any decent conclusions. The snippet you posted didn't make clear how much red meat was correlated with disease, which is important. As in the study I posted earlier, it could be concluded that red meat did indeed increase risk of colon cancer, but only by 1%. And I think we can both agree that it's much better to eat as much red meat as you desire rather than worry about a 1% increase in chance of disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should get the facts straight--the study accounted for other factors (physical exercise, nutrition, etc). And it also mentions that other foods such vegetables and fish might have a protective effect against the carcinogens in red meat. I don't think you're going to get a more scientific study than the one performed by the WHO (which confirmed a previous, large scale study by the American Cancer Society).

It took fiber intake and alcohol intake into account, but not sugar intake, total carbohydrate intake, total calorie intake, and as far as I know, it didn't combine different factors to see if the correlation still existed. For example, people who eat more red meat eat more sugar and exercise less, but they only took one factor into account at a time.

We would also have to have access to the full study to make any decent conclusions. The snippet you posted didn't make clear how much red meat was correlated with disease, which is important. As in the study I posted earlier, it could be concluded that red meat did indeed increase risk of colon cancer, but only by 1%. And I think we can both agree that it's much better to eat as much red meat as you desire rather than worry about a 1% increase in chance of disease.

The best evidence comes from a pair of large 2005 studies, one from Europe, the other from the United States. The European research tracked 478,000 men and women who were free of cancer when the study began. The people who ate the most red meat (about 5 ounces a day or more) were about a third more likely to develop colon cancer than those who ate the least red meat (less than an ounce a day on average)

These two studies are impressive, and they don™t stand alone. A meta-analysis of 29 studies of meat consumption and colon cancer concluded that a high consumption of red meat increases risk by 28%, and a high consumption of processed meat increases risk by 20%.....

Scientists from England have offered a new explanation. Their investigation recruited healthy volunteers. The volunteers ate one of three test diets for a period of 15 to 21 days. The first diet contained about 14 ounces of red meat a day, always prepared to minimize HCA formation. The second diet was strictly vegetarian, and the third contained large amounts of both red meat and dietary fiber.

Stool specimens from the 21 volunteers who consumed the high-meat diet contained high levels of N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), which are potentially cancer-causing chemicals. The 12 volunteers who ate vegetarian food excreted low levels of NOCs, and the 13 who ate meat and high-fiber diets produced intermediate amounts.

These results are interesting enough on their own, but the researchers went one step further. They were able to retrieve cells from the lining of the colon that are shed into the stool. The cells from people eating the high-meat diet contained a large number of cells that had NOC-induced DNA changes; the stools of vegetarians had the lowest number of cells with damaged genetic material, and the people who ate high-meat, high-fiber diets produced intermediate numbers of damaged cells....

You dont have to give up red meat to be healthy, but the evidence suggests that you would be wise to limit your consumption.

Harvard University

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These results are interesting enough on their own, but the researchers went one step further. They were able to retrieve cells from the lining of the colon that are shed into the stool. The cells from people eating the high-meat diet contained a large number of cells that had NOC-induced DNA changes; the stools of vegetarians had the lowest number of cells with damaged genetic material, and the people who ate high-meat, high-fiber diets produced intermediate numbers of damaged cells....

You don�'t have to give up red meat to be healthy, but the evidence suggests that you would be wise to limit your consumption.

Harvard University

SORRY but this study is potentially VERY flawed. Were these people eating WHITE FLOUR and other processed grains and unnatural "foods" along with their red meat? Because red meat in the context of a Standard American Diet is VERY different from red meat in the context of a grain-free paleo-type diet.

It is actually quite unscientific to assume that it is red meat alone that is causing problems here -- far more likely that there is a negative synergy involving protein, insulin, difficult-to-digest glutinous grains, et cetera.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Nutrition-Vi...ternRedMeat.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/02/nation/na-stroke2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stool specimens from the 21 volunteers who consumed the high-meat diet contained high levels of N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), which are potentially cancer-causing chemicals. The 12 volunteers who ate vegetarian food excreted low levels of NOCs, and the 13 who ate meat and high-fiber diets produced intermediate amounts.

These results are interesting enough on their own, but the researchers went one step further. They were able to retrieve cells from the lining of the colon that are shed into the stool. The cells from people eating the high-meat diet contained a large number of cells that had NOC-induced DNA changes; the stools of vegetarians had the lowest number of cells with damaged genetic material, and the people who ate high-meat, high-fiber diets produced intermediate numbers of damaged cells....

Interesting. I'm assuming that the vegetarian diet would have been highest in antioxidant compounds (even whole wheat/beans/potatoes have plenty of antioxidants), but that doesn't invalidate these results, as the high-fiber high-meat group also had higher levels of DNA changes.

What this study didn't do is report how long and how easily the body was able to eliminate these DNA changes; and how much of an actual increase in disease this high-meat diet would result in. To be an excellent study, they also should have tested a diet that was moderate in red meat (5 oz. a day), but also had a serving of poultry and fish to see if those lessened the DNA damage any. The only thing this study tells me is that 14 oz. of red meat a day can increase DNA damage. How much will this increase my chance of disease, and how much DNA damage will I get if I only eat moderate amounts of red meat? (I only eat a serving, at the most, of red meat a day anyway.)

You don�'t have to give up red meat to be healthy, but the evidence suggests that you would be wise to limit your consumption.

And there they go with the worthless pieces of advice "Limit your intake!" and "You can still eat some of it!" ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the dna changes they refer to are actually "damage". How do they know the dna is not correcting itself when they get the nutrients they need since red meat is pretty high in many nutrients. Here's a snippet from my previous link about studies refuting the meat/cancer thing:

"While two US studies have implicated meat consumption as a cause of colon cancer, there are several that contradict these findings. In 1975, Rowland Philips compared Seventh-Day Adventists physicians, who do not eat meat, with non-Seventh Day Adventist physicians, and found that the vegetarian doctors had higher rates of gastrointestinal and colon-rectal cancer deaths.10

National Cancer Institute data show that Argentina, with very high levels of beef consumption, has significantly lower rates of colon cancer than other western countries where beef consumption is considerably lower.11

A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Cancer found that increased risk of colon and rectal cancer was positively associated with consumption of bread, cereal dishes, potatoes, cakes, desserts and refined sugars, but not with eggs or meat.12

And a 1978 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found no greater risk of colon cancer, regardless of the amounts of beef or other meats ingested.13 The study also found that those who ate plenty of cruciferous vegetables, such as cabbage, Brussels sprouts and broccoli, had lower rates of colon cancer. So just because it's all right to eat beef doesn't mean you shouldn't eat your broccoli.

Actually, we know one of the mechanisms whereby colon cancer is initiated, and it does not involve meat per se. Colon cancer occurs when high levels of dietary vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats, along with certain carcinogens, are acted on by certain enzymes in the cells lining the colon, leading to tumor formation.14

This explains the fact that in industrialized countries, where there are many carcinogens in the diet and where consumption of vegetable oils and carcinogens is high, some studies have correlated meat-eating with colon cancer; but in traditional societies, where vegetable oils are absent and the food is free of additives, meat-eating is not associated with cancer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the dna changes they refer to are actually "damage". How do they know the dna is not correcting itself when they get the nutrients they need since red meat is pretty high in many nutrients. Here's a snippet from my previous link about studies refuting the meat/cancer thing:

"While two US studies have implicated meat consumption as a cause of colon cancer, there are several that contradict these findings. In 1975, Rowland Philips compared Seventh-Day Adventists physicians, who do not eat meat, with non-Seventh Day Adventist physicians, and found that the vegetarian doctors had higher rates of gastrointestinal and colon-rectal cancer deaths.10

National Cancer Institute data show that Argentina, with very high levels of beef consumption, has significantly lower rates of colon cancer than other western countries where beef consumption is considerably lower.11

A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Cancer found that increased risk of colon and rectal cancer was positively associated with consumption of bread, cereal dishes, potatoes, cakes, desserts and refined sugars, but not with eggs or meat.12

And a 1978 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found no greater risk of colon cancer, regardless of the amounts of beef or other meats ingested.13 The study also found that those who ate plenty of cruciferous vegetables, such as cabbage, Brussels sprouts and broccoli, had lower rates of colon cancer. So just because it's all right to eat beef doesn't mean you shouldn't eat your broccoli.

Actually, we know one of the mechanisms whereby colon cancer is initiated, and it does not involve meat per se. Colon cancer occurs when high levels of dietary vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats, along with certain carcinogens, are acted on by certain enzymes in the cells lining the colon, leading to tumor formation.14

This explains the fact that in industrialized countries, where there are many carcinogens in the diet and where consumption of vegetable oils and carcinogens is high, some studies have correlated meat-eating with colon cancer; but in traditional societies, where vegetable oils are absent and the food is free of additives, meat-eating is not associated with cancer."

::applause:: My point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly not very stable evidence. Brings up the point that I was thinking about going in, humans have been eating red meat forever and only recently has cancer arose as an issue.

If they accompany the steak with fried potato and a bunch of high carb food...Then I wont be surprise it'll be related to colon cancer..

a huge amount of protein and carbohydrate just dont come together as a meal

I dont think meat is hard to digest as long as u eat it alone without any other food

Protein food breaks down into liquid completely in ur stomach before it moves on deeper

Actually fiber is the one that's harsh on ur system....it reminds undigested and storage in ur body for like...12 hours before it gets tossed out( if u have bowel movement twice a day...even worse I know some people dont even have BM everyday)

By that time the fiber has already fermented in ur warm...bacteria filled intestine....x_x

Just keep every meal as simple as possible by eating only one or two kind of food for good digestion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that you should eat one large meal in the afternoon and only snack throughout the day to simulate caveman eating habits, this also seems to reinforce the cleansing from 12-12 idea. Do you think this is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eating paleo has cleared my acne twice in the past and I am well on my way to clearing my skin a third time and I have only been on the diet a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd provide this new article on the link b/w red meat consumption, cancer, and mortality. It was on the front page of msnbc and yahoo today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840448/

For future reference, you need to post actual studies instead of media reports about the studies. The media almost always exaggerates results of studies and they don't give you a clear idea of the methods used by the researchers, and what the researchers said themselves.

As it stands, I've already read the study that your article talks about, and it can be found here: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/562

My observations:

Something weird happened with the five quintiles for red meat and processed meat and disease rates--they were almost identical. I'm guessing that the first quintile of red meat consumption lined up with the first quintile of processed meat consumption; the second quintile of red meat consumption with the second quintile of processed meat consumption; and so on.

Remember, processed meat isn't allowed on the paleo diet.

Furthermore, the researchers noted themselves that people in the higher quintiles of red meat consumption also had lower levels of fruits and vegetables, less education, and were more likely to smoke.

Something else: people who look out for their health tend to decrease red meat consumption, because we've been told for years that red meat predisposes us for disease. Thus, can we really draw valid conclusions from a epidemiological study about red meat?

Finally, increased consumption of white meat was associated with a significant drop in disease rates, including heart disease and cancer. I say that if half of your meat comes from white meat, and half of it comes from unprocessed red meat, you eat plenty of fruits/vegetables, you exercise, and you don't smoke, you are predisposing yourself to a long, healthy life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×