Negating the Negatives of Meat

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
There is also the question of heme, contained in large(r) amount in red meat, which is probably the main reason this type of meat has more adverse effects on the intestines. Chlorophyll does an excellent job of capturing it and helping it out. Eat leafy greens, - spinach was very effective -, with your meat and you should be good. This does not appear to be an important issue with e.g. chicken, but the heating the any meat will produces AGEs and HCAs. This can possibly be countered by pretreatment, like marinating to reduce the formation, and eating lots of veggies to neutralize the compounds once ingested. Several phytochemicals are quite proficient in reducing DNA adducts and the likes, so veggies should therefore be eaten with every meal. Pounding a charred pound of steak and calling it a meal is not a very good idea.[/quote]

This. Just be sure to proportionately increase antioxidant rich foods in your diet if you so choose to increase red meat. Heme of consumed red meat can act as a catalyst of oxidative damage and could initiate colon, breast and prostate cancers, heart disease and other diseases - PubMed

And also as has been said, marinating meat in certain herbs can effectively reduce toxic compounds created through high heat cooking. That and eating meat cooked at a lower temp reduces the formation of HCAs and AGEs.

Funny this thread started because I’ve only recently started to care about this stuff. My 2 pounds of ground sirloin a day bulks are over :frowning: although I do still eat about 4 lbs a weeks of lean bee, and of course, I do splurge every now and then for a full on BBQ feast!

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
This. Just be sure to proportionately increase antioxidant rich foods in your diet if you so choose to increase red meat. Heme of consumed red meat can act as a catalyst of oxidative damage and could initiate colon, breast and prostate cancers, heart disease and other diseases - PubMed
[/quote]
But notice that this abstract (which is not an experiment or even a study, btw) mentions what is true of most “evidence” about the harm of red meat: confounding of “red meat and/or processed meat.”

Nitrites and nitrates added to processed meats are known carcinogens, yet the epidemiological studies lump together red meat and processed meat. Bad science. Plus, these are correlations so we don’t know if there are other factors that are different between red meat eaters and the non-eaters that are not accounted for in the model.

Check out

Cancer was not included in the analysis, but it might have been interesting if it had been, huh?

A WSJ article about the study said
“A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that the heart risk long associated with red meat comes mostly from processed varieties such as bacon, sausage, hot dogs and cold cutsâ??and not from steak, hamburgers and other non-processed cuts.”

However, the experts quoted in the article then go on to blame sodium as the culprit in processed meats!This is an example of how pure speculation, with no evidence to back it up, gets muddled together with actual evidence. The actual study mentioned in the article did not look at sodium at all! But the average reader gets the impression it does.

And the abstract Tiger posted is speculation, not evidence, published in Med Hypotheses. It’s not unreasonable hypothesis to test, but it’s speculation at the moment. Maybe before they go looking for the oxidative damage, they should separate out the correlations of red meat versus processed meat and cancer. See if there really is a link before looking for the reason for the link.

Indeed, I find it strange that the general public is left with the impression that steak and fresh meats are bad for you but cold cuts are not, I also find it interesting that Argentina the worlds greatest consumer of beef have a lower rates of colon cancer than meat eating Mormons which have a lower incidence of colon cancer than the mainly vegetarian Seventh Day Adventist. http://www.wellsphere.com/healthy-eating-article/does-red-meat-cause-colon-cancer/420526

I don’t know what kind of coconut oil you guys use but if you get the unrefined, organic type it will leave no coconut taste on any food. I’ve used it extensively and have never experienced a coconut flavor. It does get quite expensive though.

[quote]andersons wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]andersons wrote:
There’s no accounting for different tastes, but I would take my mesquite-grilled steak, aged, salted with sea salt, lightly coated with olive oil, crusted with coarsely ground tellicherry peppercorns, grilled perfectly to a crusty exterior and warm red interior, any day over one slow simmered in coconut oil.[/quote]
Sounds delicious although I never had a great grilled steak(also don’t own a grill but considering on getting one) I like my steak pan fried in olive oil and basted in foaming butter. I hear a lot of people using coconut oil nowadays for things like eggs but it would seem strange for eggs to have coconut flavor.[/quote]

Never had a great grilled steak??!!??!?!?!?!

Tragic. Even more tragic than people going to Denny’s on their Cheat Day.

Pan frying in olive oil and butter doesn’t sound too bad, but mesquite smoke flavoring a well-marbled steak is heavenly.

Coconut oil has a flavor that IMO does not mesh well with a LOT of foods. I tend to use it with Asian or Thai flavors.[/quote]
Okay I just had to try your suggestion and the result was one of the best steaks of my life. It was a well marbled rib eye with sea salt and malabar peppercorns over hot coals with an awesome crust and warm red center.

cant believe this has not been posted yet

just laugh at the vegan, and KEEP BEING AWESOME

Cooking with rosemary reduces heterocyclic amines.

The supplement benfotiamine reduces accumulated AGEs in the body.