[quote]winkel wrote:
Do any of you feel 18oz beef over two meals is excessive? on a bulk? I certainly don’t but posted same article on another site where people instead of questioning or approving of the article mostly pointed out I was killing myself with all that beef.[/quote]
No, not on a bulk. But like everyone else has said…lots of veggies and alkaline foods.
Know what? I’d rather die young wihile being active rather than live to 90 worry about my red meat consumption
I eat at least 2 lbs of red meat a day, in addition to eggs and whole milk.
Eat the beef. It makes you strong.
and those same people criticizng your beef intake are probably over 20% BF and have insane insulin resistance from their excess consumption of grains and simple sugars, including drinking calories
[quote]winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
[/quote]
the report demonstrates links and risk factors. it’s your own headline that is sensational.
It’s probably not so much that you’re eating the red meat, more like the quality and the quantity. Ex: The only red meat intake of Maasai tribes in Kenya comes from cattle, but this is infrequent, and the cattle are what we’d consider free-range and organic. Maybe not the best example to the extremes (fully industrialized society compared to semi-nomadic pastoralists), but I don’t think red meat is anything to worry about if you watch quality and quantity.
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
so clearly the ideal state is starvation and death
you might not be alive but at least your digestive system won’t be stressed ![/quote]
no i think you missed the idea, and that is the kind of attitude heavy smokers and alcoholics use… “id rather die happy”
but whatever, to each his own
[quote]winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
[/quote]
I see a lot of comments on this thread; all quite interesting, but there’s something about all of this “cause and effect” discussion that hasn’t been mentioned. That is, the “red meat causes cancer” claims are based almost entirely on correlation statistics. Rule #1 in correlation stats is that you absolutely cannot claim causality from the results. Instead, you can only state there’s some association b/w two factors of interest.
The part few people get to hear, though, is that if your sample size is large enough, you can find statistically significant correlations b/w almost anything. The classic example of shoe size predicting intelligence is in fact a great example; sample a large enough population and you’ll find a link. Remember that bit of info whenever you read about opinion polls, election polls, survey data, etc.
Thus, my advice: Eat your lean red meats. However, as someone else mentioned, anything in excess (or, in this case, exclusively as your source of protein) isn’t advised. - c
[quote]RushNRocket wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
so clearly the ideal state is starvation and death
you might not be alive but at least your digestive system won’t be stressed !
no i think you missed the idea, and that is the kind of attitude heavy smokers and alcoholics use… “id rather die happy”
but whatever, to each his own
[/quote]
i see the point clearly and i don’t smoke or drink, i would rather feel good for 50 years then feel miserable for 80-90
[quote]Lockwood wrote:
The part few people get to hear, though, is that if your sample size is large enough, you can find statistically significant correlations b/w almost anything. The classic example of shoe size predicting intelligence is in fact a great example; sample a large enough population and you’ll find a link. Remember that bit of info whenever you read about opinion polls, election polls, survey data, etc.
[/quote]
Well said. Now if only the general public knew this and wouldn’t go into scares whenever an epidemiology study is published.
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
RushNRocket wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
so clearly the ideal state is starvation and death
you might not be alive but at least your digestive system won’t be stressed !
no i think you missed the idea, and that is the kind of attitude heavy smokers and alcoholics use… “id rather die happy”
but whatever, to each his own
i see the point clearly and i don’t smoke or drink, i would rather feel good for 50 years then feel miserable for 80-90[/quote]
That doesn’t make sense - heavy drinking and smoking isn’t likely to get you to 80, much less 90. What most people with ‘devil may care’ attitudes towards toxic stuff like cigarettes and (lots of) booze is that it’s not just that you live a shorter life - all the negative effects of old age hit you sooner, too.
It’s pretty shitty when you see a 35-year old guy hacking up black stuff and looking like a leukemia patient.
Not that tobacco and booze are entirely bad for you (alright, maybe tobacco), but all things in moderation.
[quote]blue_star_cadet wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
RushNRocket wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
so clearly the ideal state is starvation and death
you might not be alive but at least your digestive system won’t be stressed !
no i think you missed the idea, and that is the kind of attitude heavy smokers and alcoholics use… “id rather die happy”
but whatever, to each his own
i see the point clearly and i don’t smoke or drink, i would rather feel good for 50 years then feel miserable for 80-90
That doesn’t make sense - heavy drinking and smoking isn’t likely to get you to 80, much less 90. What most people with ‘devil may care’ attitudes towards toxic stuff like cigarettes and (lots of) booze is that it’s not just that you live a shorter life - all the negative effects of old age hit you sooner, too. It’s pretty shitty when you see a 35-year old guy hacking up black stuff and looking like a leukemia patient.
Not that tobacco and booze are entirely bad for you (alright, maybe tobacco), but all things in moderation.[/quote]
lol, ill agree with “all things in moderation,”
but i don’t think every report should be dismissed with a know it all attitude.
While i don’t believe you should buy into every new study (including the one OP mentioned)that comes out, and certainly there is a clear distinction between correlation and causality. Still, science is discovering new things all the time that they didn’t have the technology or the resources to do even a few years ago.
Give it a few years and i’m sure there will be a multi-billion dollar study with the conclusion “breathing may be detrimental to long term health”
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
Give it a few years and i’m sure there will be a multi-billion dollar study with the conclusion “breathing may be detrimental to long term health”[/quote]
That’s common knowledge you douche.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
One (and only one) reason that Japan and many other countries have a lower incidence of certain cancers is because of our great amount of red meat consumption. It matters not if it’s grass fed.
We want to eat grass fed Beef because it is lower in fat, which might be better. However, that has nothing to do statistically with an over consumption of red meat causing cancer. But I think it’s more than just read meat consumption. America is the land of over eating and that is dangerous for many reasons.
I always cringe when I read about huge football players, bodybuilders, powerlifters etc. talking about their diets and the great amount of calories swallowed each day. There is very good evidence that this sort of diet will unquestionably cut your lifespan short.
How many have read about caloric restriction and longevity? It’s now a fact that the less calories that you eat the healthier you are and the longer you will probably live.
If of course those calories are filled with quality nutrients etc. Then again who wants to look like a pencil neck geek in order to reach 90 or 100?
Okay, sorry for the digression.
The question:
Can red meat give you cancer? The short answer is…that depends.
If you eat it less than three times per week, and never barbecue probably not.
[/quote]
Correlation is not causation.
[quote]Lockwood wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
I see a lot of comments on this thread; all quite interesting, but there’s something about all of this “cause and effect” discussion that hasn’t been mentioned. That is, the “red meat causes cancer” claims are based almost entirely on correlation statistics.
Rule #1 in correlation stats is that you absolutely cannot claim causality from the results. Instead, you can only state there’s some association b/w two factors of interest.
The part few people get to hear, though, is that if your sample size is large enough, you can find statistically significant correlations b/w almost anything. The classic example of shoe size predicting intelligence is in fact a great example; sample a large enough population and you’ll find a link. Remember that bit of info whenever you read about opinion polls, election polls, survey data, etc.
Thus, my advice: Eat your lean red meats. However, as someone else mentioned, anything in excess (or, in this case, exclusively as your source of protein) isn’t advised. - c
[/quote]
I didn’t read your post before I posted. You are absolutely correct.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
I eat at least 2 lbs of red meat a day, in addition to eggs and whole milk.
Eat the beef. It makes you strong.[/quote]
Or the lamb…I can’t stand chicken, though I like eggs. I can only get duck at the chinese market and it’s chock full of MSG. I am suspicious of fish anymore. Lamb and beef make me feel good, so I am going with that.
[quote]winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
[/quote]
But why risk getting cancer by eating red meat when you can eat poultry which is relatively safer and healtier??
chicken, turkey and esp. ostrich meat which is officially a red meat but has the characterisitcs of poultry.
[quote]King Bling wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
But why risk getting cancer by eating red meat when you can eat poultry which is relatively safer and healtier??
chicken, turkey and esp. ostrich meat which is officially a red meat but has the characterisitcs of poultry.[/quote]
chickens are disgusting.
ostriches are just super-big-ass chickens.