Post Reply
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Red Meat and Early Death
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 12:39PM #41
TemplarS
Posts: 6,783

Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:08PM, teilhard wrote:


IOW, being sensible and reasonable and informed and MODERATE is a Good Idea ...


 



Well, yes, but the "informed" part is also quite imperfect. The experts in this sort of thing keep changing their minds.  Coffee used to be bad, now it's good.  Margarine used to be good, now it's bad.  Alcohol used to be bad, now (red wine, anyway) it's good.  Liver used to be good, now it's bad. Chocolate used to be bad, now it's good.   And so it goes.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 12:49PM #42
rabello
Posts: 21,145

I think the evidence regarding the danger of the saturated fat content in red meat is pretty well established by now, which is why even the most vociferous defender of eating red meat agrees that eating it in moderation is a good idea -- unlike eggs or chocolate (dark chocolate, that is), etc.  What I think is also pretty well established is the level of "contaminants" that are now found in red meat, especially stored in fat, due to agricultural practices and mass-production operations where the "good" and the "bad" get mixed together.   Not a big deal for adults, who are free to choose, but it is a big deal for kids, who don't get to choose, and what they are served at school lunch, in these days, is not the healthiest.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 12:53PM #43
teilhard
Posts: 51,094

Yes ... Children are obviously more sensitive to Contaminants such as Heavy Metals, Pesticide Residues, etc. ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 12:54PM #44
teilhard
Posts: 51,094

Which again illustrates the Point that Human Nutrition Studies are of LIMITED Value and ought always be ingested with at least a FEW "Grains of Salt" ...


Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:39PM, TemplarS wrote:


Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:08PM, teilhard wrote:


IOW, being sensible and reasonable and informed and MODERATE is a Good Idea ...


 



Well, yes, but the "informed" part is also quite imperfect. The experts in this sort of thing keep changing their minds.  Coffee used to be bad, now it's good.  Margarine used to be good, now it's bad.  Alcohol used to be bad, now (red wine, anyway) it's good.  Liver used to be good, now it's bad. Chocolate used to be bad, now it's good.   And so it goes.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 1:04PM #45
rabello
Posts: 21,145

Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:53PM, teilhard wrote:


Yes ... Children are obviously more sensitive to Contaminants such as Heavy Metals, Pesticide Residues, etc. ...




They are affected by their intake of saturated fat, too.  These days, the signs of atherosclerosis and CAD are being found in people by their early teens.   Some people, like m_m are lucky, and can eat the way they want and maintain the arteries of a teenager into middle age (according to his report).  Others who try to take care of themselves just as carefully are not as lucky and have stents by the time they are 50 years old.   Generalizations are not necessarily helpful.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 1:14PM #46
arielg
Posts: 9,116
Mar 15, 2012 --  1:32PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jay Leno came up with a good question.... go back and read the OP. The claim being made is that 1 out of 10 deaths are caused by meat. Even though that is not true, pretend it is. Doesn't that mean that 9 out of 10 deaths are caused by vegetables? That's just an extension of the faulty logic being presented here that we are being asked to buy into.


Just remember, everyone that has died, that's everyone!, had eaten carrots within 6 months of their death. Carrots kill.



Let's pretend that 10 out of 10 people  that die were breathing.  Breathing kills.  What a stupid argument.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 1:28PM #47
rabello
Posts: 21,145

Mar 15, 2012 -- 1:14PM, arielg wrote:


Let's pretend that 10 out of 10 people  that die were breathing.  Breathing kills.  What a stupid argument.




Just looking at Jay Leno, I wouldn't use him as a model of good health or an expert on healthy diet due to his personal experience.  Plus, he mischaracterized the findings of the study just to make a joke about it, which further undercuts his usefulness when it comes to a healthy lifestyle.   The study did not find that 1 in 10 people die from meat, as was claimed.

Moderated by Merope on Mar 25, 2012 - 04:11PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 2:28PM #48
teilhard
Posts: 51,094

Yes ... Our entire Society is generally sickened by unhealthy Life  Style Choices ...


Mar 15, 2012 -- 1:04PM, rabello wrote:


Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:53PM, teilhard wrote:


Yes ... Children are obviously more sensitive to Contaminants such as Heavy Metals, Pesticide Residues, etc. ...




They are affected by their intake of saturated fat, too.  These days, the signs of atherosclerosis and CAD are being found in people by their early teens.   Some people, like m_m are lucky, and can eat the way they want and maintain the arteries of a teenager into middle age (according to his report).  Others who try to take care of themselves just as carefully are not as lucky and have stents by the time they are 50 years old.   Generalizations are not necessarily helpful.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 2:43PM #49
Abner1
Posts: 6,391

TemplarS wrote:


> This sounds very reasonable, though not foolproof.  There may be bad things going on


> which you are not aware of by current medical tests.


True enough, which is why I put in the word "probably".  There's always room for learning more (at which point what is moderate may shift as more information about hazards comes into play).  But we can only make decisions based on what is currently known.


So far I haven't seen a single scientific study that showed that my current level of meat consumption is hazardous.  I've heard a lot from various evangelical vegetarians about how any level of meat consumption, no matter how low, damages my health - but not from scientists.


> Look, there are valid reasons to be a vegetarian.  Concern for animals is one (my


> daughter is a vegetarian for that reason).  Or, if you simply don't like meat, fair enough.


True enough, and more power to them.  One of my coworkers is a vegan and can't eat most of the stuff people bring to the yearly Christmas party, so I try to bring something for him in addition to my much-beloved teriyaki salmon.  Last year it was cherry brownies ... not at all healthy, but 100% animal-product free.  :)


> There are all sorts of risks in life; we accept them willingly for doing things we enjoy. Eat


> a steak now and again, go skiing or skydiving or ride a motorcycle (or even a bicycle). 


> Travel to some third world countries.  Live in an earthquake or tornado zone. Or don't


> go to church (yes, there are studies showing that people who are religious are healthier).


(There's caveats in those studies too, though.  It turns out that if you compare people who go regularly to church with people who go regularly to some non-religious social group, the effect disappears - so it may be that it's just socializing vs. stay-at-homes.  There's also the chicken-and-egg problem that people who are less healthy may stay home more and so be less likely to go to church, so the causality may be backwards.  But all in all, I definitely agree with what you are saying here.


> Even if you could manage to do so (which you can't), a zero-risk life wouldn't be


>  worth living.


Agreed, though that's up to the individual.  If someone really wants to live a zero-risk life, that's up to them - but it's definitely not for me.


I do find it interesting that the "you shouldn't do this because of the risks" logic isn't applied in a systematic manner, though.  You should give up meat because of (supposed) health risks for even the slightest consumption ... but not cars, or skydiving, or any of the other things that people do that are fun and have measurable risks attached to them.  I mean, cats come with risks of cat-scratch fever and certain parasitic diseases, and there's certainly the risk of bites or tripping over them ... yet most of the evangelical vegetarians I know keep cats.  If they're really against eating meat because of risks, shouldn't they give up cats too?  If they decide that keeping cats is worth the risks, why shouldn't others decide the same about eating meat?


IMO "don't do it because it has risks" isn't a very strong argument against eating meat.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 3:01PM #50
rabello
Posts: 21,145

Well it's like anything else that carries longterm negative consequences, like smoking.  By the time a smoker comes down with emphysema or COPD and comes to regret his/her years of choosing to smoke, it's too late.  If te person is old, well, I guess it's no big deal, esp if the person is old enough to have his treatment covered by MediCare.  But if the disability hits early, to someone who still has minor-aged children, then it is a big deal, for the kids, anyway.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook