About to embark on a 30-day trial of meat and water

[bilby]

Cardiovascular disease is a function of obesity, and obesity is a function of consuming too many calories. Energy dense foods aren't bad in of themselves, but it's a lot easier to maintain a healthy weight when 80% of your diet is plants, and even easier when it's 100%. Which is why I suspect you see produce rich diets resulting in longer lives.

Ah. So, that doesn't actually apply to people like me, because it is nearly physically impossible to be obese when consuming 100% meat.

Truthfully I'm not really responding to the thread, just talking nutrition. I can't really say I know the ins and outs of an all meat diet, I'm just yet to run into anything that speaks highly of animal-based foods relative to plant-based ones, when we're talking longevity. Maybe I haven't seen solid evidence, I don't know, but I'm definitely comfortable with the idea that a diet that's solidly grounded in plant-based foods is good for you, which is why I do it.

For reference, check out the Canada food guide which was just updated in the past year:

Minimizing animal-based products and maximizing produce was pretty much central to the change. Surely there was some science behind it?

I don't want to kick you for choosing a diet. Honestly, to each their own, if it's working for you great. For me, plants AND small amounts of meat is working beautifully on pretty much every front.

They mis-spelled 'beer'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...
An awful lot of plants create nasty chemicals as a defense against being eaten. The portions we eat generally are low in the nasty stuff, or else we prepare them in ways to neutralize the chemicals. That doesn't mean they are free of the nasty stuff, though.

It seems that by and large plants go to a lot of trouble in order to get eaten by things big enough to spread their seeds around.

Plants want their fruits eaten, not the whole plant.

Animals don't want to be eaten, not even their fruit. At least that's what I hear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plants want their fruits eaten, not the whole plant.

Animals don't want to be eaten, not even their fruit. At least that's what I hear.

But they normally do so by evasion or fighting back, very few make themselves inedible.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Due to social obligations my diet this past week was not that healthy. Too much of all the things I don't regularly eat, and I could feel it. So went vegan yesterday and woke up feeling much better. Seems my body knows what it wants.

At some point I am going to do the meat thing for a week or two to see how it affects me. Just healthy meats, not processed, and just meats with probably a touch of soy sauce and some olive oil. I'm very curious to see how my gut reacts.

 

[rousseau]

Due to social obligations my diet this past week was not that healthy. Too much of all the things I don't regularly eat, and I could feel it. So went vegan yesterday and woke up feeling much better. Seems my body knows what it wants.

At some point I am going to do the meat thing for a week or two to see how it affects me. Just healthy meats, not processed, and just meats with probably a touch of soy sauce and some olive oil. I'm very curious to see how my gut reacts.

That's how I feel every time I head to my parents place for a weekend. By the time I head back home my body is begging for nutrition.

 

[steve_bank]

Due to social obligations my diet this past week was not that healthy. Too much of all the things I don't regularly eat, and I could feel it. So went vegan yesterday and woke up feeling much better. Seems my body knows what it wants.

At some point I am going to do the meat thing for a week or two to see how it affects me. Just healthy meats, not processed, and just meats with probably a touch of soy sauce and some olive oil. I'm very curious to see how my gut reacts.

Me too. It seems like the body tells you when you are eating bad. I speculate the feedback gets overridden by pleasure sensations of eating poorly.

I eat meat but not a lot. If I am feeling poorly a large vegetable salad seems to help.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Found this article and thought to post it:

SCIENTISTS STUDIED AMERICANS FOR EIGHT YEARS TO FIND OUT HOW RED MEAT AFFECTED THEIR HEALTH

Professor Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London who also didn't work on the research, said: "This report comes hot on the heels of another big study of 409,885 men and women in nine European countries that found red and processed meat consumption was associated with a 19 percent increased risk of ischemic heart disease, which is a leading cause of premature mortality.

"That study also found milk, fish, eggs and poultry were not associated with risk.

"These findings taken together challenge the popular myth that high protein diets containing lots of red meat are good for health, but support current dietary guidelines that advocate a shift to a Mediterranean style diet, which contains plenty of vegetables, nuts, wholegrain, some fish, poultry and milk but very small amounts of red and processed meat."

 

[PyramidHead]

Found this article and thought to post it:

SCIENTISTS STUDIED AMERICANS FOR EIGHT YEARS TO FIND OUT HOW RED MEAT AFFECTED THEIR HEALTH

Professor Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London who also didn't work on the research, said: "This report comes hot on the heels of another big study of 409,885 men and women in nine European countries that found red and processed meat consumption was associated with a 19 percent increased risk of ischemic heart disease, which is a leading cause of premature mortality.

"That study also found milk, fish, eggs and poultry were not associated with risk.

"These findings taken together challenge the popular myth that high protein diets containing lots of red meat are good for health, but support current dietary guidelines that advocate a shift to a Mediterranean style diet, which contains plenty of vegetables, nuts, wholegrain, some fish, poultry and milk but very small amounts of red and processed meat."

Thanks for the link, and it looks like this is finally a study that controlled for some other factors usually ignored in epidemiology (alcohol consumption, lifestyle). However, what they did not seem to control for, and what is the most crucial aspect of my diet, is plant intake generally and carbohydrate consumption in particular. Due to the size of the study, there was no group that removed those elements from their diet entirely, so we can only see the effects of relatively higher or lower amounts of red meat, processed meat, or fish in the context of relatively higher or lower amounts of carbohydrates. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the energy density and fat content of red meat are perfectly healthy when consumed in isolation and utilized via ketosis, but can be harmful when excess carbohydrate consumption triggers fat storage and cholesterol production. I'll give the story a forum on some of the carnivore hangouts online and see what folks have to say about it, though.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Found this article and thought to post it:

SCIENTISTS STUDIED AMERICANS FOR EIGHT YEARS TO FIND OUT HOW RED MEAT AFFECTED THEIR HEALTH

Professor Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London who also didn't work on the research, said: "This report comes hot on the heels of another big study of 409,885 men and women in nine European countries that found red and processed meat consumption was associated with a 19 percent increased risk of ischemic heart disease, which is a leading cause of premature mortality.

"That study also found milk, fish, eggs and poultry were not associated with risk.

"These findings taken together challenge the popular myth that high protein diets containing lots of red meat are good for health, but support current dietary guidelines that advocate a shift to a Mediterranean style diet, which contains plenty of vegetables, nuts, wholegrain, some fish, poultry and milk but very small amounts of red and processed meat."

Thanks for the link, and it looks like this is finally a study that controlled for some other factors usually ignored in epidemiology (alcohol consumption, lifestyle). However, what they did not seem to control for, and what is the most crucial aspect of my diet, is plant intake generally and carbohydrate consumption in particular. Due to the size of the study, there was no group that removed those elements from their diet entirely, so we can only see the effects of relatively higher or lower amounts of red meat, processed meat, or fish in the context of relatively higher or lower amounts of carbohydrates. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the energy density and fat content of red meat are perfectly healthy when consumed in isolation and utilized via ketosis, but can be harmful when excess carbohydrate consumption triggers fat storage and cholesterol production. I'll give the story a forum on some of the carnivore hangouts online and see what folks have to say about it, though.

Reading the article I thought the same thing but my issue was that they did not account for refined carbs, aka junk carbs. There's a big difference between eating a donut and eating some asparagus.

There have been studies that looked specifically at these refined carbs, and those studies predictably concluded that refined carbs shorten life and cause metabolic syndrome/chronic disease.

 

[steve_bank]

Thanks for the link, and it looks like this is finally a study that controlled for some other factors usually ignored in epidemiology (alcohol consumption, lifestyle). However, what they did not seem to control for, and what is the most crucial aspect of my diet, is plant intake generally and carbohydrate consumption in particular. Due to the size of the study, there was no group that removed those elements from their diet entirely, so we can only see the effects of relatively higher or lower amounts of red meat, processed meat, or fish in the context of relatively higher or lower amounts of carbohydrates. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the energy density and fat content of red meat are perfectly healthy when consumed in isolation and utilized via ketosis, but can be harmful when excess carbohydrate consumption triggers fat storage and cholesterol production. I'll give the story a forum on some of the carnivore hangouts online and see what folks have to say about it, though.

Reading the article I thought the same thing but my issue was that they did not account for refined carbs, aka junk carbs. There's a big difference between eating a donut and eating some asparagus.

There have been studies that looked specifically at these refined carbs, and those studies predictably concluded that refined carbs shorten life and cause metabolic syndrome/chronic disease.

Refined carbs is not news. When you snack all day on junk food your blood sugar repeatedly spikes and the pancreas tries to compensate.

Diabetes is a metabolic disorder. People do come back from diabetes with diet and exercise. For me it was not just feeling better, the feeling was a fundamental change in the body.I have watched a few PBS shows by doctors who have clinics for nutrition and diets.

They do have success with disease with diet. Depression is another. I do not remember all the details, but there is now science behind it. The idea that disease is always caused by some outside influence like virus is not always true.

It took me 10 years of progressively bad diet and lack of exercise to destroy my heart. An echocardiogram when I was in the hospital for an infection showed my heart was in great shape. 10 years later heart failure.It took me three years to now feeling a bit normal. I can walk a few miles and exercise for an hour without feeling it too much.

The issues in studies has always been evaliuating overall lifestyle.

People who consciously become vegetarians are likely to take good overall care of themselves.

Big meat eating can go with beer, it did for me. For dinner several times a week steak and beer at my favorite restaurant.


There was a study in the 40s I think on heart disease and longshoremen. Before automation they lifted, pushed, and pulled all day long. Low rates of heart disease.

I have seen some say it is all diet and exercise does not matter, I have seen some say it is all exercise diet does not matter.

I think it is a balance of both.


Japanese in the past had low heart disease. Rice, fish, vegetables, and a little meat.

 

[PyramidHead]

From a rapid response editorial to the posted study:

One possible issue with the HNS/HPFS studies is the exposure of the participants to the opinions of the researchers. Medical personnel in the USA can hardly be unfamiliar with the idea that meat causes disease, which is communicated to them in various media, including from authorities such as the AHA and ADA, and mostly based on the earlier epidemiology of the Harvard Chan group. They are less likely to be made aware of research from other countries with different conclusions.

This creates an exceptional risk of conscientiousness bias, as the subjects and researchers are caught in a feedback loop where the health-conscious are more likely to take the advice of the researchers. This is indicated by lack of an association in never-smokers and those who overall eat a "healthy diet" between higher meat intake and mortality.

A further issue is the absence of baseline data and raw numbers. The first table that appears with subject characteristics (table 2) is already age-adjusted. Yet we know from enquiries made by my colleagues and I in 2017 that age differences between quintiles in Harvard analyses of the NHS/HPFS data can be very large as an artifact of the cumulative survey method unique to these studies,, for example: "participants in the lowest quintile of SFA intake were much older than those in the highest quintile (mean difference, approximately 15 years), resulting in a strong confounding by age."[2] This kind of information should be supplied in a transparent manner when an epidemiological paper is first published.

All things considered, even a charitable reading of the data only gives a hazard ratio of 1.1, which is pretty low. If there is an effect somewhere in there, it's not a large one.

 

[southernhybrid]

I wasn't looking for an article to add to this thread, but I read about this study in an email that I receive and it did make me think of this thread. It looks like a very detailed study.

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110

Results 14 019 deaths occurred during 1.2 million person years of follow-up. Increases in red meat consumption over eight years were associated with a higher mortality risk in the subsequent eight years among women and men (both P for trend<0.05, P for heterogeneity=0.97). An increase in total red meat consumption of at least half a serving per day was associated with a 10% higher mortality risk (pooled hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.17). For processed and unprocessed red meat consumption, an increase of at least half a serving per day was associated with a 13% higher mortality risk (1.13, 1.04 to 1.23) and a 9% higher mortality risk (1.09, 1.02 to 1.17), respectively. A decrease in consumption of processed or unprocessed red meat of at least half a serving per day was not associated with mortality risk. The association between increased red meat consumption and mortality risk was consistent across subgroups defined by age, physical activity, dietary quality, smoking status, or alcohol consumption.

Conclusion Increases in red meat consumption, especially processed meat, were associated with higher overall mortality rates.

I'm just putting it out there for more info. I'm not sure if this is related to any other study posted, but this actually gives the more minute details of how the study was done and how the results were determined. I don't care to discuss it, just offering it for those who choose to continue this discussion.

 

[PyramidHead]

I wasn't looking for an article to add to this thread, but I read about this study in an email that I receive and it did make me think of this thread. It looks like a very detailed study.

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110

Results 14 019 deaths occurred during 1.2 million person years of follow-up. Increases in red meat consumption over eight years were associated with a higher mortality risk in the subsequent eight years among women and men (both P for trend<0.05, P for heterogeneity=0.97). An increase in total red meat consumption of at least half a serving per day was associated with a 10% higher mortality risk (pooled hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.17). For processed and unprocessed red meat consumption, an increase of at least half a serving per day was associated with a 13% higher mortality risk (1.13, 1.04 to 1.23) and a 9% higher mortality risk (1.09, 1.02 to 1.17), respectively. A decrease in consumption of processed or unprocessed red meat of at least half a serving per day was not associated with mortality risk. The association between increased red meat consumption and mortality risk was consistent across subgroups defined by age, physical activity, dietary quality, smoking status, or alcohol consumption.

Conclusion Increases in red meat consumption, especially processed meat, were associated with higher overall mortality rates.

I'm just putting it out there for more info. I'm not sure if this is related to any other study posted, but this actually gives the more minute details of how the study was done and how the results were determined. I don't care to discuss it, just offering it for those who choose to continue this discussion.

Yup, this is the study that TG posted that we have been going over.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bulletproof Coffee

A Bulletproof coffee has an unusual recipe that requires you to buy three separate products. It is a black coffee into which you add butter and a purified form of coconut oil.

...

As part of a quest to improve his wellbeing, he went to Tibet to learn how to meditate. During a trek in the mountains, he was offered a cup of tea infused with yak butter. Native to the Himalayas, the yak is a long-haired relative of the bison and buffalo.

"After I drank it I noticed my brain felt much better than it had in a long time, even though I should have felt bad at that elevation," he says.

After returning home to California, Mr Asprey started experimenting to make his own version of the drink.

This is interesting because I love coffee - though I do not drink it anymore - and I love butter - thought I have substituted olive oil these days. But it is an interesting combination of foods.

Any thoughts on this, other than a successful businessman can be a bit wonky?

 

[PyramidHead]

Bulletproof Coffee

A Bulletproof coffee has an unusual recipe that requires you to buy three separate products. It is a black coffee into which you add butter and a purified form of coconut oil.

...

As part of a quest to improve his wellbeing, he went to Tibet to learn how to meditate. During a trek in the mountains, he was offered a cup of tea infused with yak butter. Native to the Himalayas, the yak is a long-haired relative of the bison and buffalo.

"After I drank it I noticed my brain felt much better than it had in a long time, even though I should have felt bad at that elevation," he says.

After returning home to California, Mr Asprey started experimenting to make his own version of the drink.

This is interesting because I love coffee - though I do not drink it anymore - and I love butter - thought I have substituted olive oil these days. But it is an interesting combination of foods.

Any thoughts on this, other than a successful businessman can be a bit wonky?

I've never tried it because I love coffee and don't want to spoil the flavor, but I eat butter pretty much every day, either by itself or as cooking oil for meat.