Harvard School of Public Health Study Highlights Risk of Early Death from Red Meat

[llsoszynski@gmail.com]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh, its not funny..

[Arashi]

I guess if this discussion irritates you, this is one strategy to try to get it shut down and squashed...

I am also surprised that you find the use of this tactic amusing... do you know what Godwin's Law is? I feel this discussion is taking a really ugly turn... frankly i am really disappointed by what this discussion has deteriorated into...

Well, I am surprised that you think I'd name the damn law without knowing what it is. And I am surprised that, of all the people who have been arguing with you for five pages, you chose to pick on me, who just got here, because I was amused at someone else. Because yes, I am amused that someone used an internet reference in this thread.

[cacodaemonia]

Hm, I was going to try to respond to a lot of different comments individually, but there's a lot going on in this thread. I think I should just point out a few things:

1) Every single low-carb/Paleo study I've seen compares the low-carb diet to a low-fat diet, without any regard for where the participants are getting their carbohydrates.

2) As almost all participants in these studies are very overweight and often morbidly obese, just about any change in diet will improve their health, while the low-fat group continues eating sugar and white flour.

3) In almost every low-carb study I've seen, the low-carb group eats significantly fewer calories than the other group or groups. Again, they're going to lose weight that way no matter what.

4) Low-carb diets generally exclude all or most processed foods. However, any whole foods diet will do this, so I'd like to see a study that compares whole food low-carb to whole food low-fat. I suspect the results would be a lot different from what you tend to see in typical low-carb studies.

So basically we need to stop eating processed crap and start eating moderate ratios of real food, yeah?

I would feel guilty not posting a link to this here, though I know it's waaaaay too long for most people to bother with.

[llsoszynski@gmail.com]

2) As almost all participants in these studies are very overweight and often morbidly obese, just about any change in diet will improve their health, while the low-fat group continues eating sugar and white flour.

Thats a really good point, I haven't really thought of this before.

You make alot of great points!

[aj_rock]

It isn't a stretch to say that everybody that needs open heart surgery has some kind of inflammation around their heart. I mean, they need open heart surgery.

Call me a terrible person, but I lulled.

But no, really guys, lets NOT just end the discussion. We always seem to just peter out at a similar point each time the subject comes up.

A la Loren's comment about the heart surgeon and Waldo's less professional (but utterly hilarious) response about Wolfe and Sisson, is that they STILL make up a rather small (yet vocal) portion of the health-oriented committee. If you presented me with legions and legions of heart specialists (not just the surgeons; surgeons do in fact spend more time learning about the practicalities of surgery rather than keeping up with the latest ticks on what causes the heart disease, they're specialists) who could all point at grain-induced inflammation as being a prime mover in heart disease and myocardia, then I would cede the point.

I would say again, being able to perform open heart surgery, while an amazing and fantastic feat of skill, does not make you the be-all-end-all of heart knowledge. Of all the heart surgeons, he's the only one to come to this conclusion? Come on. Especially considering that, after reading some of his material, I'd put his whole 'doctorness' on about the same level as Dr. Pinski. Famous, vocal, not necessarily the best authoritative knowledge. Just the one with a heaping of charisma and a good agent.

MMyers: that seems like a straw man argument in itself. A known method of dealing with Crohn's is overall improvement of diet. If Loren's diet can in-arguably be defined as better than before, whether it specifically lies within the paleo domain or not, can probably be attributed to his improvement of symptoms. I'd rather not have to go over someone else's lifestyle who is obviously incredibly affected by a serious disease either way though. To bring it up is really not fair; not to us, or to Loren. Too many emotions to get involved, yah know?

Ok last point: How can grains be high omega-6 if most of them have maybe 1 gram of fat total? Gluten is bad if you have a sensitivity; no effect if you don't. Grains can all be placed on the GI and are processed like all other food before impacting insulin, which is a hormone you absolutely need, just don't want released in large quantities. I'll give you lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies, but by that argument who would ever bother eating lettuce or celery which have basically water and that's it?

I'm out for the night; just booked a trip to cancun Have a good one everyone!

[LRB]

How about nobody sticks to ANY diet without carefully monitoring how they feel and keeping up with regular medical maintenance? That way you'll know if something is wrong because a doctor can actually show you, and then you can try something else that might be better.

This. When people ask why I've eliminate white flour (and, honestly, glutens), I say "as an experiment," and leave it at that.

One thing I have learned about myself recently: I may not be lactose intolerant, but rich, creamy things disagree with me (or I with them) -- ice cream, yogurt, things like that. But I do okay with cheddar, pizza cheese, ricotta (go figure). Maybe it's combining sugars with lactose that creates the problem? I dunno. But I intend to find out.

[Arashi]

4) Low-carb diets generally exclude all or most processed foods. However, any whole foods diet will do this, so I'd like to see a study that compares whole food low-carb to whole food low-fat. I suspect the results would be a lot different from what you tend to see in typical low-carb studies.

So basically we need to stop eating processed crap and start eating moderate ratios of real food, yeah?

Yeah, I'm seeing lots of improvement not only in my weight, but in my disposition and my good mood too just by eating lots of vegetables and fruits and not eating sweets and junk food.

I'm out for the night; just booked a trip to cancun Have a good one everyone!

I'm jealous!

[Loren Wade]

Call me a terrible person, but I lulled.

But no, really guys, lets NOT just end the discussion. We always seem to just peter out at a similar point each time the subject comes up.

A la Loren's comment about the heart surgeon and Waldo's less professional (but utterly hilarious) response about Wolfe and Sisson, is that they STILL make up a rather small (yet vocal) portion of the health-oriented committee. If you presented me with legions and legions of heart specialists (not just the surgeons; surgeons do in fact spend more time learning about the practicalities of surgery rather than keeping up with the latest ticks on what causes the heart disease, they're specialists) who could all point at grain-induced inflammation as being a prime mover in heart disease and myocardia, then I would cede the point.

Just because hundreds of other doctors say it's a certain way doesn't make that any more or less true either.

I would say again, being able to perform open heart surgery, while an amazing and fantastic feat of skill, does not make you the be-all-end-all of heart knowledge. Of all the heart surgeons, he's the only one to come to this conclusion? Come on. Especially considering that, after reading some of his material, I'd put his whole 'doctorness' on about the same level as Dr. Pinski. Famous, vocal, not necessarily the best authoritative knowledge. Just the one with a heaping of charisma and a good agent.

I could say the same response for any other doctor you present. No one is the be-all end-all. I am just giving information on the other side of the spectrum here. Please don't blow it off like it can't be accepted.

Everyone used to "know" the world was flat, right? Well, right now, all doctors "know" that cholesterol causes heart disease. In my opinion from what I've read and the reseatch I have done, the world is round. Make your own opinion, but don't disregard the little man. Just because they don't have millions (yes, millions) of $$$ to throw at a study to prove or disprove this argument, doesn't mean there's no way they can be right.

We're both contributing to the conversation.

MMyers: that seems like a straw man argument in itself. A known method of dealing with Crohn's is overall improvement of diet. If Loren's diet can in-arguably be defined as better than before, whether it specifically lies within the paleo domain or not, can probably be attributed to his improvement of symptoms. I'd rather not have to go over someone else's lifestyle who is obviously incredibly affected by a serious disease either way though. To bring it up is really not fair; not to us, or to Loren. Too many emotions to get involved, yah know?

Maybe I should note that I have tried vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, low carb/atkins as well. It's not a straw-man argument.

"A known method of dealing with Crohn's is overall improvement of diet." - Correct.

But a known method of removing all symptoms of Crohn's? It's not known... except to all of the other people who have gone Paleo and done the same as me.

Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it's any less true. I agree studies are extremely important... but just because there's not a study on it doesn't make it any less true and there's plenty of information and smaller studies that conflict this Harvard study. Nothing makes this Harvard study the be-all end-all either. We go back to my last point again. Just adding to the conversation here.

Ok last point: How can grains be high omega-6 if most of them have maybe 1 gram of fat total?

No clue, but it's extemely high. Check here for a list of high omega 6 foods.

Gluten is bad if you have a sensitivity; no effect if you don't. Grains can all be placed on the GI and are processed like all other food before impacting insulin, which is a hormone you absolutely need, just don't want released in large quantities. I'll give you lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies, but by that argument who would ever bother eating lettuce or celery which have basically water and that's it?

I completely disagree here. I will always hold the stance that gluten is bad for you either way. There's plenty of information on it but I'm not even gonna try and argue it because I have a feeling you'll say that since thousands of doctors don't say the same thing, it can't be true.

You'll give me lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies? Better give it to me for meat too. The nutrients are extremely low in comparison. Think of me eating meat and veggies as simply eating the most nutrient dense foods as possible.

Exactly why I stick to broccoli, carrots, sweet potatoes, etc... instead of celery and lettuce.

[MMyers]

Call me a terrible person, but I lulled.

But no, really guys, lets NOT just end the discussion. We always seem to just peter out at a similar point each time the subject comes up.

A la Loren's comment about the heart surgeon and Waldo's less professional (but utterly hilarious) response about Wolfe and Sisson, is that they STILL make up a rather small (yet vocal) portion of the health-oriented committee. If you presented me with legions and legions of heart specialists (not just the surgeons; surgeons do in fact spend more time learning about the practicalities of surgery rather than keeping up with the latest ticks on what causes the heart disease, they're specialists) who could all point at grain-induced inflammation as being a prime mover in heart disease and myocardia, then I would cede the point.

I would say again, being able to perform open heart surgery, while an amazing and fantastic feat of skill, does not make you the be-all-end-all of heart knowledge. Of all the heart surgeons, he's the only one to come to this conclusion? Come on. Especially considering that, after reading some of his material, I'd put his whole 'doctorness' on about the same level as Dr. Pinski. Famous, vocal, not necessarily the best authoritative knowledge. Just the one with a heaping of charisma and a good agent.

MMyers: that seems like a straw man argument in itself. A known method of dealing with Crohn's is overall improvement of diet. If Loren's diet can in-arguably be defined as better than before, whether it specifically lies within the paleo domain or not, can probably be attributed to his improvement of symptoms. I'd rather not have to go over someone else's lifestyle who is obviously incredibly affected by a serious disease either way though. To bring it up is really not fair; not to us, or to Loren. Too many emotions to get involved, yah know?

Ok last point: How can grains be high omega-6 if most of them have maybe 1 gram of fat total? Gluten is bad if you have a sensitivity; no effect if you don't. Grains can all be placed on the GI and are processed like all other food before impacting insulin, which is a hormone you absolutely need, just don't want released in large quantities. I'll give you lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies, but by that argument who would ever bother eating lettuce or celery which have basically water and that's it?

I'm out for the night; just booked a trip to cancun Have a good one everyone!

He improved his diet by going Paleo. I obviously don't speak for him, but I believe he feels very strongly that Paleo was the prime thing that helped. Yeah, he improved his diet, but he did it in a specific way, and he had success with it. Whether you agree with the approach, he had success with it.

For somebody who seems to like to think scientifically I would not imagine you brushing off a first-hand account so readily, bud.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, calling it a straw man argument is just kind of confusing. I mean, saying Crohn's is reduced by overall improving a person's diet (which he did), and then making the connection to Paleo (the overall improvement, which is how he achieved it) really isn't taking anything out of context. It's a linear, Point A to Point B observation. Sorry, but I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

And I know you just booked it, but I hope it's a fun and safe trip.

[Waldo]

You'll give me lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies? Better give it to me for meat too. The nutrients are extremely low in comparison. Think of me eating meat and veggies as simply eating the most nutrient dense foods as possible.

This is incorrect.

Micronutrients =/= nutrients

If you are going to talk about nutrient density, the density of macronutrients is what is relevant (fat, carbs, protein). Micronutrients are by and large irrelevant. Deficiencies are not normal in the western diet except iron (in breastfed only babies) and calcium (especially in women). Vegans tend to be low in one of the B vitamins, I forget which one. The only micronutrient that is known to have a positive affect over the minimum required amount is vitamin C; otherwise there is no positive benefit to overdosing on micronutrients. The only micronutrient that fruit/veggies provide that isn't otherwise provided more than amply by our own synthesis, meat, dairy, and grain is vitamin C.

[Elastigirl]

Hm, I was going to try to respond to a lot of different comments individually, but there's a lot going on in this thread. I think I should just point out a few things:

4) Low-carb diets generally exclude all or most processed foods. However, any whole foods diet will do this, so I'd like to see a study that compares whole food low-carb to whole food low-fat. I suspect the results would be a lot different from what you tend to see in typical low-carb studies.

So basically we need to stop eating processed crap and start eating moderate ratios of real food, yeah?

I would feel guilty not posting a link to this here, though I know it's waaaaay too long for most people to bother with.

I would love to see this study done.

[Loren Wade]

This is incorrect.

Micronutrients =/= nutrients

If you are going to talk about nutrient density, the density of macronutrients is what is relevant (fat, carbs, protein). Micronutrients are by and large irrelevant. Deficiencies are not normal in the western diet except iron (in babies) and calcium (especially in women). Vegans tend to be low in one of the B vitamins, I forget which one. The only micronutrient that fruit/veggies provide that isn't otherwise provided more than amply by the sun, our own synthesis, meat, dairy, and grain is vitamin C.

Don't hate me for linking Robb Wolf, but this is where I originally read this and he has a chart at his site.

http://www.robbwolf.com/book-resources/

I'm not sure I understand your response. What I was referring to is in the link there.

Simply stating I'm incorrect doesn't make me incorrect.

[oystergirl]

I also find it interesting that while discussing wheat, not one person responded to my information about anti-nutrients. Wheat isn't just about carbs, it is a package of biochemical diversity that create a whole bunch of issues. Same with night shades, legumes, non-nixtomolated corn. It is in my mind a "no-brainer" to eat nutrient dense foods that have the least number of negative chemical reactions in my body related to me gaining the energy or macronutrients necessary for me to BUILD a body in optimal health.

I guess it all comes down to the fact that no one likes their ways of living attacked. I strongly believe that you are never gonna change anyone's mind about things they strongly believe unless THEY are already on the fence and your information simply confirms their doubts or shows them something that makes it click. I explained that for me, upon experimentation, it clicked on the Real Food/traditional food/no-gluten/archevore program, and I have tried a few other programs (vegan, raw vegan, macrobiotic) to find the best thing for me, so it isn't that I am simply grabbing onto a rhetoric and sticking to it in the absence of good results. I use myself as my own educated n=1 experiment and I trust the results.

L.....the reason you can tolerate fermented dairy better than conventional pasteurized dairy is because in the fermentation process, lacto-bacteria are added and that gives your body the enzymes necessary to digest the lactose. So you are most likely mildly lactose intolerant. You can do your own experiment on this by seeing if butter or straight cream, which have little milk sugar in them also affects you in the same way. I had problems too until I switched to raw dairy and now I have no issues.

Nerd boy-I saw the comment made as comic relief and nothing more. I am perfectly willing to discuss your study with you, but as I said above, I have no illusions that I will change your's or anyone elses mind.

[oystergirl]

Waldo, micronutrients are especially important! If you are interested in learning just how important, a great new book is Naked Calories by Mira and Jayson Calton. Micronutrient deficiencies can be seen in every single disease known to man, and this isn't just the theory of one dr. but everyone from the CDC, the FDA, the USDA and yep, the Harvard School of Public Heath.

[Waldo]

Don't hate me for linking Robb Wolf, but this is where I originally read this and he has a chart at his site.

http://www.robbwolf.com/book-resources/

I'm not sure I understand your response. What I was referring to is in the link there.

That first chart should set off your BS meter. After all, look at the means of comparison. My goodness. Vegetables are virtually calorie free, therefore in comparison to whole milk, which has a very high calorie count per serving, the micronutrient comparison is going to be off the charts in favor of veggies. You need a mountain of them to equal the calories in a glass of milk. For example, it takes something like 25 cucumbers to equal the calories in a glass of whole milk. Veggies have a ridiculously low nutrient density. Also the reason why nuts rank so low, nuts have an absurdly high energy density, for a given number of calories you are going to have a very low volume of nuts.

The last chart speaks to the other point I was making. There is no advantage to overeating micronutrients. It does absolutely nothing for you. Eat 100% RDA, and you will be healthy, lacking in micronutrient deficiency. Eat 1000%, and you will be no healthier, the lone known exception being C, at least anecdotally (there is no real scientific proof, but we can just assume that excess vitamin C wards off the common cold). The one micronutrient deficiency that is relatively common in adults....calcium. What is the one nutrient that the paleo diet doesn't give your the RDA with? Calcium.

[Waldo]

Waldo, micronutrients are especially important! If you are interested in learning just how important, a great new book is Naked Calories by Mira and Jayson Calton. Micronutrient deficiencies can be seen in every single disease known to man, and this isn't just the theory of one dr. but everyone from the CDC, the FDA, the USDA and yep, the Harvard School of Public Heath.

But you aren't going to be deficient in any single micronutrient if you eat a "healthy" SAD. Micronutrient deficiency is of no concern. You can assume that anybody that chooses to eat healthy is not eating Ho-Ho's for dinner and Krispy Kremes for breakfast, washing it all down with 'Dew, where you might actually get a deficiency. You don't need to eat Paleo to be totally protected from micronutrient deficieny. A bowl or two of Cheerios every morning will have the same effect.

To come full circle, a "healthy" SAD includes avoiding excessive saturated fat.

[Loren Wade]

Vegetables are virtually calorie free, therefore in comparison to whole milk, which has a very high calorie count per serving, the micronutrient comparison is going to be off the charts in favor of veggies. You need a mountain of them to equal the calories in a glass of milk. For example, it takes something like 25 cucumbers to equal the calories in a glass of whole milk. Veggies have a ridiculously low nutrient density. Also the reason why nuts rank so low, nuts have an absurdly high energy density, for a given number of calories you are going to have a very low volume of nuts.

Did I read this wrong? Because I feel like you just proved my point.

[Philociraptor]

AJ: most doctors are on board with the conventional views on cholesterol and saturated fat because of the risks of being sanctioned. They can't prescribe contrary treatments because insurance will no longer pay.

Waldo: calcium must be balanced with magnesium, so the RDA business is kinda moot.

Question: if a pill was invented that contained the exact RDA's of vitamins, minerals, and macros that the USDA prescribes, would taking it effectively replace real food? The answer is no, because real foods carry enzymes and much more involved in how we break down and use the nutrients in food.

Back to the study: I'll wait for a good experimental one that involves SAD, vegan, Paleo, and some other popular diets in a crossover fashion. Until we see that, it's all assumption through correlation, which we all know proves nothing.

Oh yeah, what about them French on saturated fat? And how would you feel if somebody had very high overall cholesterol but it was mostly the good kind and very little of the bad kind? Simply correlating saturated fat intake and cholesterol numbers is not enough.

[Waldo]

Did I read this wrong? Because I feel like you just proved my point.

I absolutely did not. That chart would be more relevant if comparisons were made of actual serving sizes.

418 kJ = 100 calories.

100 calories for each category:

Whole Grains - 3/4 slice of bread

Whole Milk - 2/3 cup

Fruit - small bowl

Veggies - a heaping pile on a plate (varies per veggie, lettuce for example would take several heads)

Seafood - a very small fillet

Lean meat - same size as the seafood, a very small breast

Nuts/seeds - a small handful

Which one of these is not like the other ones....

Of course the veggies are going to look awesome by comparison, you have to eat many times the volume to have an even calorie comparison. If you compared normal serving size to normal serving size, I'm willing to bet that veggies would come in dead last.

[Waldo]

Question: if a pill was invented that contained the exact RDA's of vitamins, minerals, and macros that the USDA prescribes, would taking it effectively replace real food? The answer is no, because real foods carry enzymes and much more involved in how we break down and use the nutrients in food.

Well, it has everything but the macros....

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-09/entertainment/27080716_1_junk-food-food-diary-unhealthy-food

Multivitamin, a can of green beans, a protein shake, and nothing but junk food. Seems to work.

[Loren Wade]

I absolutely did not. That chart would be more relevant if comparisons were made of actual serving sizes.

418 kJ = 100 calories.

100 calories for each category:

Whole Grains - 3/4 slice of bread

Whole Milk - 2/3 cup

Fruit - small bowl

Veggies - a heaping pile on a plate (varies per veggie, lettuce for example would take several heads)

Seafood - a very small fillet

Lean meat - same size as the seafood, a very small breast

Nuts/seeds - a small handful

Which one of these is not like the other ones....

Of course the veggies are going to look awesome by comparison, you have to eat many times the volume to have an even calorie comparison. If you compared normal serving size to normal serving size, I'm willing to bet that veggies would come in dead last.

Exactly... 100 calories of veggies is more food, more nutrients, and fills you up.

What am I missing?

[oystergirl]

Waldo I don't know where you are getting your information on micronutrients because most of what you are saying is completely untrue. It is a fact, gathered by the USDA that the nutrient content in foods grown in the US and in the United States have SIGNIFICANTLY declined since 1940 and the regular introduction of nitrogenous fertilizer to replace composting fertilizer. Yields have gone up but nutrient values have gone down tremendously. In fact, as far back as 1977 in congressional hearings Dr. Mertz, the former head of the USDA warned that due to soil depletion a balanced diet will not provide all of the essential trace minerals.

Products like centrum have synthetically created vitamins, many of which are in competition for the same receptor sites and thus do nothing for you. But you go ahead and believe that micronutrient deficiency isn't happening and isnt important. In fact, the CDC recently reported that Deficiences in micronutrients such as iron, iodine, vitamin A, folate and zinc affect nearly 1/3 of the world's population and the consequences can be devastating.....

[Loren Wade]

Well, it has everything but the macros....

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-09/entertainment/27080716_1_junk-food-food-diary-unhealthy-food

Multivitamin, a can of green beans, a protein shake, and nothing but junk food. Seems to work.

I really hope you're not trying to say this is healthy. If so, are you trolling? If not, are you nuts?

Waldo I don't know where you are getting your information on micronutrients because most of what you are saying is completely untrue. It is a fact, gathered by the USDA that the nutrient content in foods grown in the US and in the United States have SIGNIFICANTLY declined since 1940 and the regular introduction of nitrogenous fertilizer to replace composting fertilizer. Yields have gone up but nutrient values have gone down tremendously. In fact, as far back as 1977 in congressional hearings Dr. Mertz, the former head of the USDA warned that due to soil depletion a balanced diet will not provide all of the essential trace minerals.

Products like centrum have synthetically created vitamins, many of which are in competition for the same receptor sites and thus do nothing for you. But you go ahead and believe that micronutrient deficiency isn't happening and isnt important. In fact, the CDC recently reported that Deficiences in micronutrients such as iron, iodine, vitamin A, folate and zinc affect nearly 1/3 of the world's population and the consequences can be devastating.....

Thank you for saying what I didn't have the knowledge to say. I wanted to say this but didn't have my facts. Thanks.

[Philociraptor]

Well, it has everything but the macros....

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-09/entertainment/27080716_1_junk-food-food-diary-unhealthy-food

Multivitamin, a can of green beans, a protein shake, and nothing but junk food. Seems to work.

Work for what? Pure weight loss? That says nothing about long term health. I bet he would live a short life if that diet was kept up for a substantial amount of time, don't you?

To go along with your silliness: where's his Nobel prize? If we could just send high-energy density foods (plus a can of green beans and scoop of protein) to people with a multi-vitamin and they'd be perfectly healthy, shouldn't he be rewarded for that discovery?

[Waldo]

Work for what? Pure weight loss? That says nothing about long term health. I bet he would live a short life if that diet was kept up for a substantial amount of time, don't you?

To go along with your silliness: where's his Nobel prize? If we could just send high-energy density foods (plus a can of green beans and scoop of protein) to people with a multi-vitamin and they'd be perfectly healthy, shouldn't he be rewarded for that discovery?

Not at all. There is no intrinsic healthines value in food outside of the macros and micros it provides. Hit the macros and micros, even from an ugly source, and you'll be fine. Do a diet whose nutrients come from fabulous sources, absolutely perfect, but miss on the macros and micros, and your health will decline (cough raw vegan, anorexics in the name of healthy eating).

Why would he get a nobel prize? The calorie model is common knowledge, only really rejected by people who do fad diets. And it isn't like it is cheap; relative to Whole Paycheck organic, sure, but relative to an actual frindge of starvation diet it is extremely expensive.