One Person's Version of Nutritional Myths, Distortions, and Lies

[surfsteve]

This could be an example of me being prejudice and finding someone who says what I want to hear but  seems to ring very true to me.

http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm
 
In it many taboos are broken. Such as turning the 60/30/10 carbohydrate, fat and protein pyramid on it's side and recommending 60%fat, 30% protein and 10% carbohydrates. (OK his version is slightly different, that's mine.) No problem yet with most of you; but then he goes on to say that grass fed meats are no better than feed lot. And even that organic fruits and vegetables are no better than conventional with which I actually agree in large part that the differences have at the very least been exaggerated.  I agree with pretty much all of the myths it mentions but got a feeling that it's going to make most of you cringe.

[TylerDurden]

This is merely Stefansson's ideas regurgitated through a religious fundamentalist stance.

[cobalamin]

I'm willing to bet a lot a money that there is antinutrients in the tissues of animals consuming grains. Real meat from animals grazing on fresh grass is different than animals consuming dried grasses.

I'm also willing to bet that the pesticides on conventional produce causes demyelinating disease. Then there is the corrupt conventional produce growers selling their produce as organic until they get caught. The majority of produce is truly organic for the most part and self evidently superior.

Lipid peroxides in seeds oils high in Omega 3 fatty acids are just as inflammatory as lipid peroxides in seed oils high in omega 6 fatty acids.

It is a regurgitation for the most part.

[TylerDurden]

There is plentiful scientific evidence supporting the fact that cows fed on unnatural(ie grainfed) diets are unhealthy and contain lots of AGEs/advanced glycation end products/heat-derived toxins from cooking.The biblelife website also , as I recall, tried to suggest that going vegan made one a homosexual, yet I am reasonably certain that even ZCers have  persons of that orientation among them....

[surfsteve]

I'm willing to bet a lot a money that there is antinutrients in the tissues of animals consuming grains. Real meat from animals grazing on fresh grass is different than animals consuming dried grasses.

I'm also willing to bet that the pesticides on conventional produce causes demyelinating disease. Then there is the corrupt conventional produce growers selling their produce as organic until they get caught. The majority of produce is truly organic for the most part and self evidently superior.

Lipid peroxides in seeds oils high in Omega 3 fatty acids are just as inflammatory as lipid peroxides in seed oils high in omega 6 fatty acids.

It is a regurgitation for the most part.

It is also possible that the meat they are selling as grass fed is conventional ranchers passing hormone loaded beef onto us. I remember when the stores here in US first started selling organic bananas. I could actually taste the difference twenty or thirty years ago but lately they both taste the same. long before organic became regulated I dated a farmer's daughter who admitted to me that her father used to sell all of the apples that had marks from worms on them as organic but they all came from the same pasture and were sprayed with the same thing. Back then people were screaming for regulation but where has it gotten us? The chemicals they are allowed to spray on organic crops to get today's perfect organic produce are just as bad.

Your fear of antinutrients from only animals that consume grains seems unfounded. Grass probably contains way more antinutrients than grain does. It's the stuff plants give off to avoid being eaten. Especially by insects. I suspect cows have evolved to eat them in spite of this. Vegetables have been bred to contain very little antinutrients and are the reason they need to be sprayed with pesticides to prevent insects from gorging upon them.

[TylerDurden]

Organic does not mean much. I would far rather trust a farmer who could not afford to convert to official organic status but who could feed his cows on a natural diet(ie 100% grass and varied herbs) and who could not afford to medicate his cattle with mass  antiobiotics and other medicines,  than an officially-organic-certified farmer who fed his cows on 100% grains diets and kept his cattle huddled together just barely within the confines of the organic status laws.

[surfsteve]

There is plentiful scientific evidence supporting the fact that cows fed on unnatural(ie grainfed) diets are unhealthy and contain lots of AGEs/advanced glycation end products/heat-derived toxins from cooking.The biblelife website also , as I recall, tried to suggest that going vegan made one a homosexual, yet I am reasonably certain that even ZCers have  persons of that orientation among them....

I would be interested in examining the evidence claiming hot dogs from grass fed beef contain less AGEs than grain fed. Seems like you were pushing the fact that AGEs came from the cooking process before.

[surfsteve]

Organic does not mean much. I would far rather trust a farmer who could not afford to convert to official organic status but who could feed his cows on a natural diet(ie 100% grass and varied herbs) and who could not afford to medicate his cattle with mass  antiobiotics and other medicines,  than an officially-organic-certified farmer who fed his cows on 100% grains diets and kept his cattle huddled together just barely within the confines of the organic status laws.

Wait until the beef industry gets a chance to regulate grass fed beef. They will probably screw it up just as bad as the regulations did for organic. Seems like there's too much money to be made for it not to happen that way too. There are probably loads of ranchers already injecting cattle with drugs so they can produce more grass fed beef the way they do CAFOs. You're right. Unless you know the farmer you really don't know and your only choice is to put blind trust in somebody's label.

[TylerDurden]

I would be interested in examining the evidence claiming hot dogs from grass fed beef contain less AGEs than grain fed. Seems like you were pushing the fact that AGEs came from the cooking process before.

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704564/table/T1/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15281050

[TylerDurden]

http://www.eatwild.com/references.html

http://rawpaleo.com/source-raw-meat-grass-fed-quality-quantity/

https://viibrante.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/grass-fed-meat-vs-grain-fed-and-why-i-stopped-eating-vegan/

http://thepaleodiet.com/rage-of-ages-advanced-glycation-end-products/

http://alevergara22.blogspot.de/2013/02/grass-fed-meat-vs-grain-fed-and-why-i.html

[surfsteve]

I've read all 7 links and they appear to either not differentiate between grass fed and CAFO when it comes to AGEs or just give general assumptions without going into detailed quotable evidence. The 5th article has a picture that claims grass fed animals have no antibiotics or hormones but what proof is there other than saying it?There is nothing preventing grass fed ranchers from injecting their cattle with hormones to make them grow faster and no evidence of regulations preventing them from doing so. Seems to me like they are just trying to guilt me into paying 5 times more money for grass fed without any hard evidence. Show me a label or scientific study showing that grass fed is three times higher in omega 3 or whatever and I would be more incline to believe it.

Aside from knowing the farmer what assurance do we have that ranchers are any better than chicken farmers claiming free range is this


When in reality it is this!


Again. There is nothing in any of those links suggesting grass fed animals have less AGEs in their meat. Only that AGEs are higher when the meat is processed and cooked.

Link #7 is the exact same plagiarized article as in link 5, word for word.

All in all I'm sure animals that have spent there lives not being injected, roaming the fields and eating live grass are better but I have little assurance from reading it on a label that there is all that much difference.

[TylerDurden]

https://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/

[TylerDurden]

Grassfed meat has a lot less inflammation  than  grainfed meats:-

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-yes-and-no

[Drengr]

http://www.beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-ground-beef-no-difference-healthfulness

This is in response to surfsteve about omega 3. There is only a minor difference.

[surfsteve]

https://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/

The meat from this animal is completely different from the meat derived from a cow that was born and raised in a factory and fed grain-based feed.

To my knowledge no CAFA cows are born and raised in factories. They are born and raised on the range and eat grass till the last six weeks when they are fattened up on grain just before they are slaughtered. I think the article has cows confused with chickens.

In a massive review of 20 studies that included a total of 1,218,380 individuals, processed meat was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. However, no association was found for unprocessed red meat

Pretty sure no distinction was made between grass fed in any of those 20 studies. To make the first one liner statement about grass fed and then switch to talking about unprocessed meat in general for the rest of the lengthy article seems like pure bait and switch.

On to next article...

[surfsteve]

Grassfed meat has a lot less inflammation  than  grainfed meats:-

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-yes-and-no

I agree. But isn't that based upon assumption?

Hypothetically, if we ate raw meat from healthy animals that are completely free of all additives, chemicals, and infectious bacteria and parasites then there is no way that it can create cancer.

What renders the meat cancerous is when we process it and cook it in ways that create highly carcinogenic compounds.

How We Prepare Our Meat Causes Cancer

Amen!

First, marinate your meats in lemon juice, vinegar, herbs, and spices. This acidic marinade helps to prevent advanced glycation end products from forming, while the herbs and spices have a high antioxidant content that will keep the other carcinogenic compounds from forming when the meat is exposed to heat.

Even though this paragraph has nothing to do with grass fed or even raw meat I felt compelled to quote it because I love my raw meat prepared this way!

We dug deep into the science in this article, but the science has little to say about the effects of 100% grass-fed red meat consumption vs. conventional, GMO grain-fed red meat consumption on human health. We can, however, make some sound assumptions based on the differences between each type of meat... When it comes to promoting health and preventing cancer, 100% grass-fed and grass finished pastured red meat is the best meat to have

.
ASSUMPTIONS. The article even admits it. The more I look the more I realize the grass fed theory is based on assumption and that there have been no studies to back it up. Apparently being grass fed makes marginal differences and the main differences are how the meat is prepared and the type of meat, especially organ vs muscle meats.

[surfsteve]

http://www.beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-ground-beef-no-difference-healthfulness

This is in response to surfsteve about omega 3. There is only a minor difference.

That article actually made CAFO beef sound a little better than grass fed. Of course they neglected to mention all the chemicals and hormones they give them but then there's nothing preventing grass fed farmers from doing the same thing. To keep it fair, that article was put out by the beef industry. I got a feeling that soon there will be regulations governing grass fed beef. My assumptions tell me it's main purpose will be to put the individual little grass fed beef ranchers out of business and nothing to do with making the quality better. If anything they will probably come up with a great big list of chemicals they call natural and organic that are no better than the ones they are injecting CAFOs with right now. The same thing has already happened to organic produce.

[sabertooth]

If one is truly gun ho about these issues I advocate to get off the food grid altogether. Do not trust any label and take personal responsibility for scouting out and obtaining the best food possible. These systems of food production are failing, and even the best intended grass fed producers often fail to reproduce the quality health and vitality found truly free foraging animals. Go beyond labels and visit local farmers in person, learn to check out the lay of the land, see the quality of the pasture in person. Learn to check out animals for signs of good health, learn to hone your taste so that you can avoid consuming sick and contaminated animals.

I advocate for simplicity, no need for any complicated analytics, or to take in vast amounts of comparative jargon. Most articles are of bunk and have little intrinsic value beyond imaginative speculation. Its difficult to extrapolate from the experience of others into some formula for success.... There are just way too many variables to ever cover complexly....So in this spirit I recommend going back to the basics of first hand experience, and learn to trust your gut reaction. Nature has given us the basic tools to discern shit from shinola. These latent attributes only need to be sharpened with will power upon the grindstone of experience, in order to revive the primal glory.

Ive gone to countless farms sampling the whole spectrum of animal flesh types...and have tasted the good, the bad and the ugly of the world...I am a practical man, who doesn't see much value in measuring Omega ratios, or speculating on the anti nutrient levels.....these notions are abstractions which will never account for the holistic health of the actual animal being consumed. As much as some believe that scientific study and analysis can lead them to manna, I would much rather focus my attention on more down to earth assessments.... if an animal is integrated into a healthy dynamic environment that has all the elements needed for surthrival, without contamination..... if the outward physical manifestation is impressively vital and energetic, if the inner organs are well formed without blemish or pox, and the taste of the flesh is pure and pleasurable, then the body of such an animal will be judged to have accrued the optimal qualities from which to prey upon. 

[TylerDurden]

To my knowledge no CAFA cows are born and raised in factories. They are born and raised on the range and eat grass till the last six weeks when they are fattened up on grain just before they are slaughtered. I think the article has cows confused with chickens.

  The type you are referring to are called "grainfinished" cattle. where cattle are usually fed more or less  100% on grains   in the last 3 months or so of their lives. "Grainfed" cattle refers to US/UK cattle(most of them)  which are fed on mostly grains and hay  and various artificial supplements such as growth hormones etc. for most of their lives, and pasture/cows' milk for the 1st 9 months or so of their lives.

Excerpt:-

Current industrial farming practices rely heavily on grain. Under current US agriculture policy, the government provides substantial subsidies to farmers who produce grains, particularly corn and soybeans.  F Livestock producers often use corn and soy as a base for their animal feed because these protein-rich grains help bring animals to market weight faster, and because they are cheaper than other feed options as a result of government subsidies. It has been estimated that the operating costs of factory farms  G would be 7-10% higher without these subsidies.  F As a result, a large percentage of grains grown in the US are used in animal feed, with 47% of soy and 60% of corn produced in the US being consumed by livestock. 

 taken from:-
http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed

Also, here is a definitive set of studies comparing grainfed beef with grassfed beef:-
http://www.eatwild.com/references.html

[TylerDurden]

I agree. But isn't that based upon assumption?

No.  The simple fact is that if  any animal, human or otherwise, is fed on an unnatural diet, then inflammation is going to be a concern in the future.

ASSUMPTIONS. The article even admits it. The more I look the more I realize the grass fed theory is based on assumption and that there have been no studies to back it up. Apparently being grass fed makes marginal differences and the main differences are how the meat is prepared and the type of meat, especially organ vs muscle meats.

I have already supplied a link with lots of studies showing vast differences between grassfed and grainfed beef, so "nearly right" as US teachers are forced to say.

[TylerDurden]

I years ago found a scientific table, part of a study, which showed the different levels of AGEs in foods, and was able to distinguish between grainfed meat and grassfed/naturally-raised meat, and it showed the vast differences in AGE-levels between grassfed meat and grainfed meat. Can't find it any more, but it was on pubmed somewhere. No matter. I found this table:-


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704564/table/T1/


Notice how the meats, even when raw, show AGE-levels in the 500-900 range with minimally-cooked meats showing 1,200+ or so, and more if grilled/fried etc. Now, while it doesn't say so, it is pretty clear that all those "raw" meats listed come from intensively-farmed animals raised on unhealthy grainfed etc. diets, which is why their AGE-levels are in the many  100s, not less.How can I state this with reasonable certainty? Well, much further down the list, human breast milk is shown as having only 6.67 AGE-levels, with frozen human breastmilk having 10 AGE points. Hmm, the difference between raw and frozen breastmilk does suggest that eating thawed prefrozen meat is slightly more harmful, AGE-wise etc., than eating raw, nonfrozen meats.