LBNMr Driscollpulses and limiting the red meat
There's no reason what so ever to limit red meat. It's one of the best sources of protein, b12, iron, taurine and creatine you could eat, and it tastes great. Pulses are an absolute garbage source of nutrition in comparison.
Ok I'll give you two reasons to limit red meat. First from the British Heart Foundation:
[www.bhf.org.uk].
"In the UK, we eat more protein than is recommended. This isn’t automatically a problem, but it depends where your protein is coming from. Meat-heavy diets have been linked to increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and may also shorten your life. We should eat more peas, beans and lentils, two portions of fish a week, and eat no more than 70g of red and processed meat per day".
70 gr is approx 2.5 ounces, far less than most people consume in an average meal.
Next the NHS website:
[www.nhs.uk]
"Some meats are high in saturated fat, which can raise blood cholesterol levels if you eat too much of it. Making healthier choices can help you eat meat as part of a balanced diet.
if you eat a lot of red or processed meat, it's recommended that you cut down as there is likely to be a link between red and processed meat and bowel cancer.
A healthy balanced diet can include protein from meat, as well as from fish and eggs or non-animal sources such as beans and pulses. Meats such as chicken, pork, lamb and beef are all rich in protein."
All of that sound advice, of course, ignores the production of meat is massively inefficient and (particularly with regard to beef) a major contributor to climate change, which the OP's new born May well be more concerned about in the future than you appear to be now.
Incidentally, nowhere did I say that people shouldn't eat, or limit, chicken, fish, cheese, all of which have very high levels of protein, some even higher than red meat- eg chicken. . Personally though, I can't touch supermarket chicken. It's relatively cheap, but the production processes are not only cruel, which, I get, which may not matter to a lot of people, but also disgusting. As for farmed fish, the typical supermarket fare, it's not much better.
With regard, and with the utmost respect to , FBs comment, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that my advice wasn't so much related to dieting as to the need (in order to keep oneself in the best of health, to have a broad range of food sources in our daily diet. I fully agree that there's contradictory evidence on 'dieting' per se out there, but stating, as I did, that including a wide range of veg, fruits pulses ( and beans and nuts which I overlooked originally) is advice that would be found from any reputable source.
Sorry to go on. but food is one of, if not the most, important influences on our health and being advised NOT to limit red meat is very bad advice indeed.
Fat Buddha CBEThe last few posts illustrate perfectly why the fat fella needs to ignore EVERYTHING he reads here read widely and consult experts.
Caveat being there aren’t really any experts, lots of advice is contradictory, despite the various experts all providing evidence to support their claims. That’s why despite Weight Watchers, Slimming World and SHA the population is fat and getting fatter.
[fingertips.phe.org.uk]
Yep, it’s one of the ironies of modern life that the size of the diet industry grows in proportion to the expanding waistlines of the population. Worth €40b in the US. That should encourage a degree of caution
Personally think this is perhaps the biggest health crisis we face. Just seems to get worse. The number of overweight kids I see in schools when I pick our grandkids up is very saddening.
Mr DriscollAll of that sound advice
The mistake you're making here is looking at opinions, opinions formed from observational research that is not supposed to imply a causal relationship. If you want to support any claim please provide some data that you've read and understood. I have no interest in your appeals to authority
2019 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies:
Conclusion: The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
2019 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies:
Conclusion: The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
2019 Systematic review of randomized controlled trials:
Conclusion: Low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
2019 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies:
Conclusion: Low- or very-low-certainty evidence suggests that dietary patterns with less red and processed meat intake may result in very small reductions in adverse cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
2017 Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (supported by the ASN, which has some financial ties to the beef industry, which according to you is fine):
Conclusions: The results from this systematically searched meta- analysis of RCTs support the idea that the consumption of >0.5 serv- ings of total red meat/d does not influence blood lipids and lipoproteins or blood pressures
[academic.oup.com]
Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies:
The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
Mr Driscoll"Some meats are high in saturated fat
The NHS seemed to be concerned about saturated fat in red meat, but the trials have already been done and they are very underwhelming.
Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)
"Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes"
[www.bmj.com]
The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
"When pooling results from only the adequately controlled trials there was no effect for major CHD events (RR = 1.06, CI = 0.86–1.31), total CHD events (RR = 1.02, CI = 0.84–1.23), CHD mortality (RR = 1.13, CI = 0.91–1.40) and total mortality (RR = 1.07, CI = 0.90–1.26)"
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease
Lee Hooper et al 2020
"We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate‐quality evidence.
There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality"
[www.cochranelibrary.com]
"Results: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.
Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD"
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
" For saturated fat, three to 12 prospective cohort studies for each association were pooled (five to 17 comparisons with 90 501-339 090 participants). Saturated fat intake was not associated with all cause mortality (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.09), CVD mortality (0.97, 0.84 to 1.12), total CHD (1.06, 0.95 to 1.17), ischemic stroke (1.02, 0.90 to 1.15), or type 2 diabetes (0.95, 0.88 to 1.03)"
[www.bmj.com]
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat"
[academic.oup.com]
I’m all for chopping down the rest of the Amazon and populating it with mega beef farms myself.
What’s your obsession with reading books about it?
Slimming World and weight watchers are definitely not experts and are more akin to MLMs. The whole idea of a food being a sin is just really unhealthy.
Thanks for those sources.
I'll have a read later, but right now I've got a match to go to.
I tell you what I'll do afterwards, though- and genuinely, I'm not being sarcastic here, I'll contact people at the NHS and British Health Foundation and ask them why they they are both so definitive in their advice and choose to ignore those pieces of research you've quoted. If I get a response (and I will pursue it) I'll pass it on to you via a PM. Can't say fairer than that, really, can I ?
Mr DriscollNHS and British Health Foundation and ask them why they they are both so definitive in their advice
I don't know why you think their opinion matters? Have you ever heard of the appeal to authority fallacy?
Mr DriscollCan't say fairer than that, really, can I ?
It has no meaning, what you should be doing is ask them to provide some meaningful data
What’s your obsession with reading books about it?
Slimming World and weight watchers are definitely not experts and are more akin to MLMs. The whole idea of a food being a sin is just really unhealthy.
You are right. Who needs knowledge? Who needs books? Who needs experts? No one. What we need is morons on message boards
Have seen plenty of stuff contradicting BHF advice. Seen plenty supporting it.
The culprit is capitalism, that’s one thing all the experts agree on, though many of them fail to use that actual word.
Fat Buddha CBESeen plenty supporting it.
There is no science supporting the BHF guidelines, their beef with red meat comes from observational studies, which are not supposed to imply a causal relationship. The "evidence" is the same for Covid vaccines and car crashes.
These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID vaccination
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]).
Nutrition epidemiology is as low as it can go, they don't even measure what people eat, how much exercise, sleep, illicit drug use (maybe a bacon breakfast is popular after a heavy night on the cocaine) etc, add to that the tiny effect sizes and inconsistent results. any one with any scientific sense should be able to safely throw out such research.
Most of the books on this subject aren’t written by experts.
There’s books promoting the benefits of raspberry ketones, apple cider vinegar and all those other fads that don’t work. And, how do you find a book that’s right for you from the thousands published on weight loss.
Patience and perseverance old boy. Trial and error.
It’s very understandable but I think you missed the bit where I said THERE ARE NO EXPERTS.
So if there’s no experts then why not just listen to us morons.