Too much red meat shortens life

[steflou]

I was watching Good Morning America at around 7:30 :confused:am e.s.t-I have Direct TV channel 2-they had some man on (I believe he was a doctor-was in restroom at beginning) who said eating too much red meat shortens life. He said if you eat at McDonald's 3 times a week to eat once a week. Did anyone else see this? What do you think?

[Roadstr]

I heard a about the study yesterday and saw the segment on GMA, too. They said the amount of red meat was a hamburger (3-4 oz. cooked) like a quarter pounder a day or less. When I think of too much I think of an 8 oz steak, not a 4 oz. hamburger for lunch OR a 4 oz. steak for dinner.

[Roadstr]

Here is a link (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=7153072&page=1) to the story on ABC News. I wonder if the study included the cholesterol levels of those 71,000 people that died during the study. The risk of dying from cardiovascular disease was very high for woman.

A couple of causes of death is speculated that the cause may be from carcinogens in the meat and/or increased calorie intake.

[Belfrybat]

Apparently the test subjects were AARP members, which puts them over 50 (many way over 50), so you have to consider they have had a life-time of poor or good eating (mainly poor, I'm assuming). Also no consideration was given to carb intake. I can't wait to see Dr. Mike's blog on this issue, and knowing him, he'll be scathing in his critique. Go, baby, go! :D

As an aside, I'm really tired of all these studies that take only one ingredient and base a whole teaching on it. We eat foods in combination, not in isolation and different combinations produce different results.

[laughingW]

Yes, there was no mention of the carb load underlying the saturated fat intake.

So without that, there's no way to tell if it applies to me or not.

The GMA doctor was being irresponsible to recommendation diet changes based on that, IMO.

[Roadstr]

The study said...

"Red and processed meat intakes, as well as a high risk meat diet, were associated with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD mortality in both men and women. In contrast, high white meat intake and a low-risk meat diet was associated with a small decrease in total and cancer mortality."

It doesn't focus on carbs, it's about red meat.

We're having sesame seed crusted salmon tonight.:nod:

[laughingW]

-sigh-

Association is not causation.

[Roadstr]

-sigh-

Association is not causation.
With the absence of the amount of carbs this study concluded red meat caused a higher death rate. You may think differently, i.e. less carbs negates any problems associated with the intake of red meat. For now, it is what it is and the association has been made. :(

[laughingW]

With the absence of the amount of carbs this study concluded red meat caused a higher death rate.
Nope. The study concluded a higher risk. It didn't conclude causation.

Apparently your mind read that red meat caused the higher death rate, and I submit it is the irresponsible reporting that helps perpetuate this.

[Roadstr]

"The consumption of red meat was associated with a modest increase in total mortality," said Rashmi Sinha, lead author of the study in the March 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine
Not sure what your calling causation? I guess my mind is self perpetuating! Long live red meat!

[laughingW]

You're making me laugh. Why does this conversation somehow have the quality of "who's on first?" oh well, happy Tuesday.

[Gaelen]

The study said...
"Red and processed meat intakes, as well as a high risk meat diet, were associated with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD mortality in both men and women. In contrast, high white meat intake and a low-risk meat diet was associated with a small decrease in total and cancer mortality."

First, Roadstr, hope you enjoyed your sesame-crusted salmon. I would have.

Second, you posted that 'the study said,' when what you quoted is the news story ABOUT the study...in other words, a non-science REPORTER'S newsbyte-focused interpretation of a study report. The study report includes pages of data which was omitted from the news story...and I won't even go into how questionable some of that data is (I've already read half the study, and I'm unimpressed.)

Third, that a reporter's interpretation is NOT the same thing as what 'the study says' is a given. It's just not possible to hit all the high points in a single story; only bloggers get all the space they want without having to answer to an editor or a time limit. I know. I'm a writer. ;)

Fourth, this study combined red AND processed meats, without factoring in the stuff in processed meats. Too many variables to do more than establish association. Can't establish causal relationships unless you isolate individual things (in other words, JUST red meat or JUST processed meat) and then study the effects of the individual things. And there's been little to no work that studies red meat only. Lots of stuff (from the AICR, in fact) that studied *processed* meats and established a causal relationship between processed meats and increased incidence of cancers and cardiac issues.

Based on that alone, the scientist in me would lay a heavier suspicion on the processed meats in the diets of those studied than on the red meat consumption--but ideally, what's now needed is a diet-controlled long-term comparative study where group 1 participants eat ONLY red meat (no processed), group II participants eat only processed meats (no other type), group III participants eat only fish, group IV participants eat a mix of fish/white meat, group V participants eat a mix of fish, white and red meats, group VI participants eat only dairy/egg proteins, group VII participants eat only vegetable source proteins, group VIII eat everything but processed meats, group IX participants eat from all groups. Nobody in any group eats proteins from the other groups unless that's the group design (mixed source proteins.) And the groups are randomized as to age, sex and general health. And participants are followed for at least two years.

Anyone want to sign up for Group II? :eek: For any of the groups, where the proteins in your diet are completely out of your choice and tightly controlled? Nah, I didn't think so. :rolleyes: That's one of the reasons it's so hard to make dietary recommendations based on any kind of controlled study--VERY tough to get controlled participation, and to factor out variables.

Carb levels would be another important variable, but hey, if you can't even set up protein-type consumption controls in the groups studied, you're kinda SOL on controlling the carb levels, too.

The number of ways this study isn't accounting for variables would be about fifteen news stories all by themselves. It's the same one that draws a parallel to higher incidence of cancer based on 140 small intestine tumors developed in over 500,000 subjects studied...and buries in the study that the 140 tumors weren't even in 140 unique people--it was 140 tumors total (so fewer than 140 separate study subjects.) :eek:

FWIW, I can often be found moderating in the PP for Vegetarians forum, based on being vegetarian/meatless for 25+ years when I was younger and too broke to eat meat. I think sesame-crusted salmon sounds great...but do be careful about oxidizing the fatty acids in the sesame seeds when you grill the salmon, okay? (that's also straight from the AICR, and there is good science to back that up...)

Roadstr, you appear to have convinced yourself that eating (red) meat and saturated fats is bad for you. Not going to try to change your mind; if that works for you, go for it. But I am going to ask everyone else to hold off drawing their conclusions about the results of this study until they take the time to read the SCIENTIFIC REPORT, not the news stories that Readers' Digest the science. I'm really interested to hear what Mike Eades has to say--I'm sure this one will make his blog list sooner or later.

And Steflou, sorry that your "Welcome In" got lost in this conversation shuffle. We do tend to wander from topic to topic here--gives the place its unique character. ;) To your original question, there are lots of good reasons to NOT eat eat at McDonalds too often, but eating there once in awhile likely won't kill you (unless you have a car accident pulling out of the drive-through.) For example, McD's does have passable coffee when you're in a hurry. ;) Welcome in!

[BeccainSC]

FYI - though I haven't read the full blog, nothing would ever convince me that red meat is bad ;) - Dr. Mike posted on this 3/24 .

'becca

[Gaelen]

Ah, thank you, Becca. I've been slammed at work and am a couple days behind on blogs.

Dr. Mike's March 24 2009 blog "Meat and Mortality" (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/meat-and-mortality/#more-2770)

In addition to Mike's own analysis, this blog post contains links to actual studies, not to reports about actual studies...

[Roadstr]

Gaelen....
Thanks, the Costco frozen wild salmon was pretty good, I didn't put any sesame seeds on it and baked it at 375 for 20 min. I find myself using the grill less for cooking except putting a bunch of sweat peppers, onions and other veggies on it to roast. I think pan frying and barberque increases cancer causing hydrocarbons. If I'm wrong, no loss.

Carb levels would be another important variable, but hey, if you can't even set up protein-type consumption controls in the groups studied, you're kinda SOL on controlling the carb levels, too.

Yep, agreed. People here will see that, the general population will not, all they will see is the headline.

Roadstr, you appear to have convinced yourself that eating (red) meat and saturated fats is bad for you. Not going to try to change your mind; if that works for you, go for it.

I think a nice steak is a very nutritious for the body from time to time. It has a lot of nutrition that cannot be gotten from other foods. I also think saturated fats below 15 g a day is good for me along with equal amounts of other natural occurring fats found in walnuts, almonds, fish, dairy and chicken. I don't think 60-100 grams of saturated fat is good for me, even with carbs below 40 grams a day.

You might want to think about where toxins are stored and why people have a problem when they detox. Also, I'm sure many here have heard about the whales that have died with little too eat... it wasn't from starvation, but from poisoning from their own fat. When the fat was used for energy the toxins were released. Maybe that is why people that ate meat didn't live as long. But, then of course maybe it's because they at grains, fruits and vegetables.:eek: Only kidding!;)

[Gaelen]

Yep, agreed. People here will see that, the general population will not, all they will see is the headline.

Others will see more than a misleading headline if we insist on setting the record straight when *we* discuss it and post about it online, rather than cloud the issue with additional misinterpretations. ;)

I think a nice steak is a ver[y nutritious for the body from time to time. It has a lot of nutrition that cannot be gotten from other foods. I also think saturated fats below 15 g a day is good for me along with equal amounts of other natural occurring fats found in walnuts, almonds, fish, dairy and chicken. I don't think 60-100 grams of saturated fat is good for me, even with carbs below 40 grams a day.

You might want to think about where toxins are stored and why people have a problem when they detox. Also, I'm sure many here have heard about the whales that have died with little too eat... it wasn't from starvation, but from poisoning from their own fat. When the fat was used for energy the toxins were released. Maybe that is why people that ate meat didn't live as long.

hmm. Roadstr, I repeat--you're entitled to your opinions. But I'll also repeat that stating personal interpretation based on questionable science tends to cloud nutrition issues with additional (mis)information just as much as the media's readers'digest soundbyte--especially in an era when internet search engines put every thought front and center without weighting it against evidence.

For a different and broader scientific perspective, you might want to take a look at the link I posted to Mike's blog. If you search his blog, you'll find posts and linked scientific studies that he analyzes and discusses concerning red meat, saturated fats, their relationship (or lack thereof) to cancer, the whole 'added fats' concept, and more I can't even list off the top of my head.

But without even going into the published research--
60 grams of saturated fats is only 540 calories out of a day.
Per the information at www.nutritiondata.com for a pound of raw beef:
-- sirloin tri-tip comes in at 22g of saturated fat (60g of total fat.) It's also over 1100 calories and 139g protein--that's, IMO, a bigger consumption issue than the 22g saturated fat.
-- porterhouse comes in around 34g saturated fat
-- NY strip is 28g saturated fat/pound
-- 70/30 ground beef is 48g saturated fat/pound, while 80/20 is 32g and 90/10 is around 16g saturated fat/pound (raw)
Cooked beef servings decrease the saturated fat by approximately 1g per oz (unless, of course, you're deep-frying it...)

I don't doubt that 16oz servings of steak (and hamburgers) get eaten. I've seen 'Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.' ;) As for me, if the steak or burger or piece of meatloaf I make or order is larger than 4-6 oz., I usually save half for another meal. Portion control and binge eating is it's own problem in America...and saturated fat content plays second to that. Without the first problem, the saturated fat intake of ANYthing would be much less of an issue.

Still, even a 16oz serving of beef is way short of the low-end of what you provide as an example of what you consider a non-healthy saturated fat intake for a day. Even a tablespoon of real butter is only 7g of saturated fat.

You mention that "saturated fats below 15 g a day is good for me along with equal amounts of other natural occurring fats" -- am I interpreting this correctly that you're aiming to keep your *total* daily fat intake under 30g (15g saturated + equal amount of other fats, so 30g/day?) If that's so, you're trying to do low carb + low fat, and that's simply not enough calories. You cut one macronutrient, you've got to make it up with one of the other two. 40g carbs (160 calories) + 30g total fat (270 calories) is only 430 calories. Even if you were only aiming for 1200 calories intake per day, that would be a whopping 192.5 grams protein. Pretty tough to hit that number from natural sources...and while a good whey protein powder has always been my best friend, I do prefer to eat regular food when I can. Goddess help those who need more than 1200 calories per day (me, for one.) :eek:

Detox issues? Do you mean the natural detoxification of the body as metabolism stops relying on carbs and starts burning fats for fuel, or the artificially induced 'detox' regimens that are yet another variation of (mis)information?

If you're referring to artificially induced 'detox' regimens, you might want to search Mike's blog for some analysis and scientific references to induced detox as well.

[LisaS]

Mark's Daily Apple today (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/)also takes a look at this.

[razgarcia]

For the life of me I cannot figure our why saturated fats are supposed to be bad for you. I eat about 120g of fat each day (60% of daily calories M-F, more on weekends) of which nearly half are saturated (mostly from heavy cream, coconut oil & eggs).

My latest lab work (taken back in November when my fat consumption was lower than now) showed my total cholesterol @ 184, with HDL @ 36, LDL calculated @ 140, and triglycerides @ 38. Although these numbers are, in my doctor's own words, "great," I am trying to get my HDL higher. Ergo, an increased consumption of fats and, in particular, saturated fats. I'll be taking another blood test in April. Hopefully, HDL will be higher (my aim is to have a higher ratio of HDL to total cholesterol).

Since I can find no evidence that saturated fats contribute to CHD or inflamation and are in fact, beneficial, I believe we do ourselves a disservice by avoiding them.

But since I am not a professional in this field I will leave you with this quote from and article written in part by Mary Eenig, Ph.D.: The Skinny on Fats (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html). Dr. Enig, is a nutritionist who specializes in fats and is a member of "The International Network on Cholesterol Skeptics."
The much-maligned saturated fats—which Americans are trying to avoid—are not the cause of our modern diseases. In fact, they play many important roles in the body chemistry:


Saturated fatty acids constitute at least 50% of the cell membranes. They are what gives our cells necessary stiffness and integrity.
They play a vital role in the health of our bones. For calcium to be effectively incorporated into the skeletal structure, at least 50% of the dietary fats should be saturated. (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#38)
They lower Lp(a), a substance in the blood that indicates proneness to heart disease.39 (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#39) They protect the liver from alcohol and other toxins, such as Tylenol. (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#40)
They enhance the immune system. (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#41)
They are needed for the proper utilization of essential fatty acids. Elongated omega-3 fatty acids are better retained in the tissues when the diet is rich in saturated fats. (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#42)
Saturated 18-carbon stearic acid and 16-carbon palmitic acid are the preferred foods for the heart, which is why the fat around the heart muscle is highly saturated. The heart draws on this reserve of fat in times of stress.
Short- and medium-chain saturated fatty acids have important antimicrobial properties. They protect us against harmful microorganisms in the digestive tract.


The scientific evidence, honestly evaluated, does not support the assertion that "artery-clogging" saturated fats cause heart disease. (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#44)Actually, evaluation of the fat in artery clogs reveals that only about 26% is saturated. The rest is unsaturated, of which more than half is polyunsaturated.

[Roadstr]

You mention that "saturated fats below 15 g a day is good for me along with equal amounts of other natural occurring fats" -- am I interpreting this correctly that you're aiming to keep your *total* daily fat intake under 30g (15g saturated + equal amount of other fats, so 30g/day?) If that's so, you're trying to do low carb + low fat, and that's simply not enough calories. You cut one macronutrient, you've got to make it up with one of the other two. 40g carbs (160 calories) + 30g total fat (270 calories) is only 430 calories. Even if you were only aiming for 1200 calories intake per day, that would be a whopping 192.5 grams protein. Pretty tough to hit that number from natural sources...and while a good whey protein powder has always been my best friend, I do prefer to eat regular food when I can. Goddess help those who need more than 1200 calories per day (me, for one.) :eek:

Gaelen, I didn't work out yesterday and the calories are lower than what I usually take in. I didn't have lunch until 3PM and I try to eat 5 times a day.
===========================================
Nutrition Summary for March 26, 2009
Report generated by CRON-o-Meter v0.9.5
===========================================
Energy | 1326.4 kcal
Protein | 121.2 g
Carbs | 115.5 g
Fiber | 22.3 g
Fat | 45.5 g

Lipids (34%)
===========================================
Saturated | 10.1 g 35%


Detox issues? Do you mean the natural detoxification of the body as metabolism stops relying on carbs and starts burning fats for fuel, or the artificially induced 'detox' regimens that are yet another variation of (mis)information?
Yes natural using foods... taking calories really low (800-1200) to get the body into ketosis, but getting the body to a very alkaline state by eating alkalizing food to cause the release of fat from cells and thus cause a very rapid fat loss. This will cause detox issues in many because of .5 to 1 lb a day fat loss, symptoms usually last for a very short time (hours not days).

[Gaelen]

Gaelen, I didn't work out yesterday and the calories are lower than what I usually take in. I didn't have lunch until 3PM and I try to eat 5 times a day.
===========================================
Nutrition Summary for March 26, 2009
Report generated by CRON-o-Meter v0.9.5
===========================================
Energy | 1326.4 kcal
Protein | 121.2 g
Carbs | 115.5 g
Fiber | 22.3 g
Fat | 45.5 g

Lipids (34%)
===========================================
Saturated | 10.1 g 35%

Yes natural using foods... taking calories really low (800-1200) to get the body into ketosis, but getting the body to a very alkaline state by eating alkalizing food to cause the release of fat from cells and thus cause a very rapid fat loss. This will cause detox issues in many because of .5 to 1 lb a day fat loss, symptoms usually last for a very short time (hours not days).

So...bottom line, Roadstr...your daily totals indicate that:
-- you are not low carbing for weight/fat loss or for health; in fact, you're not low-carbing at all unless you're low-carbing at a very high maintenance level of 80-100+ grams ECC
-- you are using calorie restriction as your WOE of choice.

And you came to a low carb board to argue issues of fat consumption?

You did know that Protein Power is a low carb plan, and that's the WOE eating most of us are using, right?

All discussion is welcome...but did you honestly think that in the culture of this WOE, people would take a carb-heavy CR argument seriously and consider changing how they eat, or not attempt to point out to you where your CR concepts don't mesh with the science?

[Roadstr]

So...bottom line, Roadstr...your daily totals indicate that:
-- you are not low carbing for weight/fat loss or for health; in fact, you're not low-carbing at all unless you're low-carbing at a very high maintenance level of 80-100+ grams ECC
-- you are using calorie restriction as your WOE of choice.

And you came to a low carb board to argue issues of fat consumption?

You did know that Protein Power is a low carb plan, and that's the WOE eating most of us are using, right?

All discussion is welcome...but did you honestly think that in the culture of this WOE, people would take a carb-heavy CR argument seriously and consider changing how they eat, or not attempt to point out to you where your CR concepts don't mesh with the science?

With all due respect for you knowledge on PP, I think I'm on the right board here, page 132 of PROTEIN POWER reads, "If you are active or very active physically... you may continue to increase your carbohydrate grams in 10-gram jumps until your carbohydrate intake exceeds your protein intake by 30 percent." So, yes I am low carbing for health and no I'm not even close to maintenance limits... that's why I said, "with all due respect".

The macro nutrients were just 1 day... not too much time to eat with all the running around and missing 2 feedings. That would normally bring me up to around 1800-1900 calories. An additional meal and snack of around 300 and 200 calories.

As to arguing issues of fat consumption... just specifically commenting on this study.

Using Protein Power as a WOE? I think so. Thanks for the welcome, not trying to convince anyone about eating more carbs... it seems from the discussions everybody finds a honey pot now and then. I would highly recommend not to indulge, but we are a product of our ancestors.

[Gaelen]

With all due respect for you knowledge on PP, I think I'm on the right board here, page 132 of PROTEIN POWER reads, "If you are active or very active physically... you may continue to increase your carbohydrate grams in 10-gram jumps until your carbohydrate intake exceeds your protein intake by 30 percent." So, yes I am low carbing for health and no I'm not even close to maintenance limits...

To be clear to those who don't have PP in front of them, you're quoting with edits from the 'Transition and Maintenance' section of PP, which starts out by recommending that carb intake be slo-w-l-y increased until it's at or equal to daily recommended protein intake. If you eat lots more protein, by preference, that's not necessarily a blanket release to eat more carbs. It depends on how your body handles them. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. And you do need to keep the rest of the macronutrients in balance--if you artificially lower fat intake, you could switch to burning carbs for fuel instead of fat, blowing the CR hypothesis.

It also recommends that to figure a recommendation for an increased carb intake if you're very physically active, you multiply recommended daily minimum protein intake x 1.3 (the max of 30% more than recommended minimum protein intake, and only for the very active) to get the target max daily carb grams.

No idea what your LBM is, but let's assume 150 lbs LBM.
Same book, pg 93-94, an athlete would multiple 150 lbs LBM by a factor of .9 to get a minimum daily protein recommendation of 135. You'd multiply 135 by 1.3 to find an upper limit of maintenance carb intake to be considered low carb--about 175g carbs per day.

The Drs. Eades definition of 'athlete' to use the factor of .9 for minimum protein requirement is "competitive athlete in training, doing twice-daily heavy physical workouts for an hour or more."

'very active', which is a factor of .8 for minimum protein requirement, is "vigorous physical activity lasting an hour or more five or more times per week. That would be 120g minimum protein requirement, and about 10% less (1.2) for the factor for the maintenance upper limit on carbs, so 144g carbs.

'active', which is a factor of .7 for minimum protein requirement, is "organized physical activity for more than 30 minutes three to five times per week." That would be a 105g minimum protein requirement, and a max factor of 1.1 or about 116g upper limit on carbs.

You'll notice that the amount of carbs recommended as a potential max upper limit drops in parallel with the lowered activity level factor.

For .6 activity, the numbers for 150 LBM work out to 90g minimum protein requirement, with a 1.0 factor for the upper limit maintenance carb recommendation, so by .6 activity level, the recommendations are back to approximately equal amounts of protein and carbs for maintenence. For the truly sedentary, they may never be able to approach equal amounts of protein and carbs (I was, but I was also on chemo and that's a totally unresearched factor.)

So, if you fit the definition of athlete, you could go to 175g carb as an upper maintenance limit...although you don't *have* to eat that many carbs. And if you are artificially lowering fats while doing so, then you're moving far closer to CR and low fat dieting than you are to low carbing. If you're eating 175g carbs + 135g protein per day (1240 calories) and only around 30g fats from 15g sat fat plus 15g other fats (270 calories) you're still only at 1510 calories. And if you load up on more protein, you're going to burn carbs first, then protein, and likely not burn much fat at all. But YMMV.

not trying to convince anyone about eating more carbs... it seems from the discussions everybody finds a honey pot now and then.

Not everyone. ;)

Science is incredible and more research is needed, but it does seem that saturated fats from non-plant origin keeps popping up on the scientific radar as being harmful and mono and poly fats seem beneficial, irrespective of the level of carbohydrate intake...

Actually, no, sat-fat-is-bad doesn't keep popping up on the 'scientific' radar.
The whole point of the discussions and blog posts linked here is that it keeps popping up as media interpretation of science, regardless of scientific reports to the contrary and/or the bigger nutrition picture.

That's a very big difference.

[razgarcia]

In response to "...but it does seem that saturated fats from non-plant origin keeps popping up on the scientific radar as being harmful and mono and poly fats seem beneficial," and with all due respect, I will refer you back to the link I posted previously (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html). In a nutshell, saturated fats from animal sources and most plant sources (there are some concern about palmitic fatty acids) are not only not harmful, but downright beneficial. And with the exception of omega 3 fatty acids, excess consumption of most polyunsaturated acids have been shown to contribute to inflamation.

[laughingW]

No idea what your LBM is, but let's assume 150 lbs LBM. Same book, pg 93-94, an athlete would multiple the 0.6g protein baseline (90 grams) by a factor of .9 to get a minimum daily protein recommendation of 170 (170 to keep things to round numbers.) You'd multiply that by 1.3 to find an upper limit of carb intake to be considered low carb, so that would be about 220g carbs per day.

The Drs. Eades definition of 'athlete' or the factor of .9 for minimum protein requirement is "competitive athlete in training, doing twice-daily heavy physical workouts for an hour or more."

'very active', which is a factor of .8 for minimum protein requirement, is "vigorous physical activity lasting an hour or more five or more times per week.

'active', which is a factor of .7 for minimum protein requirement, is "organized physical activity for more than 30 minutes three to five times per week."
Gaelen, I read the protein levels in PP as always multiplying off lean body mass.

sedentary = .5 x LBM
sedentary + 100 extra pounds = .6 x LBM
active = .7 x LBM
very active = .8 x LBM
max = .9 x LBM

You have the formula as
max = .9 x (.6 x LBM)

Are all the levels that way, in your reading of it?

[razgarcia]

Check out the TNT Diet. It has good information on carbs and fats.

You can read chapters 12 and 13 online on books.google @ http://books.google.com/books?id=7H67fU3WOeEC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=saturated+fats+that+boost+HDL&source=bl&ots=O6M9vYxIAi&sig=nqOhsYwBLzdfbSjiN1WCrl4hlzc&hl=en&ei=kRPNSdbaDonYsAO918G4Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result (you'll probably need to copy & paste this URL).

[Gaelen]

Gaelen, I read the protein levels in PP as always multiplying off lean body mass.

sedentary = .5 x LBM
sedentary + 100 extra pounds = .6 x LBM
active = .7 x LBM
very active = .8 x LBM
max = .9 x LBM

You have the formula as
max = .9 x (.6 x LBM)

Are all the levels that way, in your reading of it?

You're right, LaughingW (note to self, don't try to do math and references before coffee on a dog show weekend)

The formula should be: max = .9 x LBM ... and I'll go fix the previous post. Good catch!

[laughingW]

You're right, LaughingW (note to self, don't try to do math and references before coffee on a dog show weekend)

The formula should be: max = .9 x LBM ... and I'll go fix the previous post. Good catch!
whew, for a second there I thought I had it wrong all this time. LOL

[Gaelen]

and in the spirit of pitting one scientific report against another, this particular report came through my C3 (Colorectal Cancer Coalition) and @cancer_new (Twitter) news feeds this morning. This story summarizes the findings in an actual study--and then links to the abstract so that you can find, read and judge the validity of the study design and information by reading it for yourself.
-----------------------
# In a large diet study vegetarians had a lower risk of cancer overall, but a 39 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) followed nearly 64,000 people recruited in the United Kingdom during the 1990’s. Overall, the group had about three-fourths the expected rate of cancer compared to the general population and vegetarians had 11 percent fewer cancers. However, unexpectedly, vegetarians had a high rate of colorectal cancer compared to the meat-eaters. Timothy J. Key and his team from Oxford University report their study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 11, 2009.
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.26736Mv1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=European+Prospective+Investigation+into+C ancer+and+Nutrition-Oxford+(EPIC-Oxford&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT)
--------------------

[Roadstr]

Actually, no, sat-fat-is-bad doesn't keep popping up on the 'scientific' radar.
"Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters.":jawDrop:
Your really making it hard for me to keep up on all these studies. ;)

[Gaelen]

"Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters.":jawDrop: Your really making it hard for me to keep up on all these studies. ;)

Well, let's at least not 'selectively' quote to attempt to make a point, Roadstr.

As headlined, the line that follows the overall results was the critical point of the study (boldface mine):
However, unexpectedly, vegetarians had a high rate of colorectal cancer compared to the meat-eaters.
Not just 'high,' btw--but a 39% increased risk.
Of all types of cancer, CRC is the third largest cause of cancer deaths regardless of sex in this country. It's taglined as the 'preventable, treatable, beatable' cancer--but PTB only applies if you catch CRC in stage 0, I or low risk II.

If you don't have symptoms, or have symptoms which mask as other things, or have symptoms which you or docs ignore, you can be dx'd in high-risk Stage II, III or IV entirely without warning. Then, it's not so much preventable-treatable-beatable. It's 'are you feeling lucky?' It's maybe you'll beat it, maybe not. It's practically a guarantee of recurrence and upstaging for high-risk stage IIs and IIIs and it's a very poor prognosis (2.5-3 years median survival from date of dx) for the stage IVs.

Speaking as a woman who was dx'd in Stage IV CRC at the age of 48 -- two years younger than the age for a recommended screening for someone with no family history, and someone who had NO symptoms until within 8 weeks of dx--I know all about the cruel reality that PTB doesn't apply to most of those dx'd with CRC. So frankly, I don't give a rat's @ss that vegetarians appear to have a slightly (11%) lower risk of developing *other* cancers.

Why? Because they have almost 40% chance of developing CRC, a cancer which is often as silent in development as ovarian and pancreatic cancers. Vegetarianism is the thing that well-meaning ill-informed nutritionists tend to tout as THE healthy way to eat to avoid cancer--and yet it can actually worsen someone's risk for a type of cancer that is the 3rd largest cause of cancer deaths in this country.

I think that's worth sitting up and taking notice. YMMV.

[keevin]

I do not give these observational studies much credence. There are too many unknown variables associated with the known variables. For instance, people who eat a lot of red meat may not pay much attention to the conventional wisdom that counsels one to limit red-meat consumptionl. They may also disregard other conventional wisdom such as limiting your alcohol input and smoking.

I am not surprised that people who eat more vegetables have more colerectal cancer. More undigested nutrients might arrive in the colon that bacteria could live on. These bacteria could also interact with the colon lining in perhaps a harmful way. Also, eating more vegetables and carbohydrates may raise the average blood sugar level as compared to those who eat more meat. Cancer thrives in an environment with high blood sugar. In fact, a starvation diet will often slow the progress of cancer significantly. It seems to me that the best diet to both avoid getting cancer and slowing the progress of cancer is to eat a high-fat diet along with enough protein for maintenance. This approach would minimize average blood sugars and insulin levels.