4 ms·

Interesting, thank you for sharing. However neither of those references support the claim any meat consumption is beneficial or healthy. May I recommend checki

by noondip 11y ago

Interesting, thank you for sharing. However neither of those references support the claim any meat consumption is beneficial or healthy. May I recommend checking out the work by Dr. Michael Greger on http://nutritionfacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org? Unlike Health Care Triage, each video on his channel is cited to published and peer reviewed research, opposed to just nice-sounding rhetoric.

duckmysick 11y ago
Here's something about benefits of liver consumption (which is meat): > It is important to remember the other end of the nutritional spectrum: those women whose diets may be lacking in nutrients. Doyle and colleagues reported that among women on low incomes low birth weight was significantly associated with poor intakes of thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, zinc and iron, all of which (together with other nutrients such as folate and vitamin B- 12) liver provides in generous amounts at low cost. Fetal nutritional insufficiency, low birth weight, and the associated risk of defects is thus likely to be a far greater problem on a population basis than the risk of defect associated with vitamin A toxicity. > Most women do not need to take vitamin A supplements either before or during pregnancy, and those who do should be under medical supervision. There is justifiable concern about the excessive concentrations of vitamin A in liver, but it is equally important to remember that liver is a source of many nutrients and a desirable adjunct to the diets of many women, particularly those on low incomes. [1] As for Mr Greger, I've checked out his work following your recommendation. His section about antioxidants doesn't instill confidence. The claims about wonder properties of antioxidants (preventing cancer being the primary one) are oft-repeated across the site, but this optimism should be more reserved: > Randomized, placebo-controlled trials—which, when performed well, provide the strongest evidence—offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest such trials have been mostly negative. [2] The videos on Mr Greger site quote only one paper about the preventive effects of antioxidants. The other studies which don't support this premise are omitted. Since antioxidant industry is significant ($65 billion in 2012 in the US alone [3]), this is not only a nice-sounding rhetoric, but a clever marketing as well. At first I thought such sloppy reporting was only limited to one topic on this site. But there might be more. For example, the link between milk and autism [4] is also not as clear as it's being made on the website: > In autism spectrum disorders, many parents resort to alternative treatments and these are generally perceived as risk free. Among these, the most commonly used is the gluten-free, casein-free diet. The objective of this work was to conduct a systematic review of studies published from 1970 to date related to the gluten-free, casein-free diet in autism spectrum disorder patients. Few studies can be regarded as providing sound scientific evidence since they were blinded randomized controlled trials, and even these were based on small sample sizes, reducing their validity. We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak. We recommend that it should be only used after the diagnosis of an intolerance or allergy to foods containing the allergens excluded in gluten-free, casein-free diets. Future research should be based on this type of design, but with larger sample sizes. [5] I wouldn't take everything on this site for granted. 1 - Nelson, Michael. "Vitamin A, liver consumption, and risk of birth defects." BMJ 301, no. 6762 (1990): 1176-1176. 2 - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/ 3 - http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/personal-care-surges-in-65-billion-antioxidant-products-market-1640199.htm http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/personal-care-surge... 4 - http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-milk-casomorphin-and-autism/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-milk-casomorphin-and-au... 5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114
- noondip 11y ago
  That liver article is really a stretch. The two studies I've found which reference it simply say consumption of liver or vitamin A supplements should be limited to avoid excess exposure to retinol, although may be used as a last resort for nutrition in poor populations, and is also not teratogenic in pregnant women. Not very appealing reasons to take up meat-eating, in my opinion. I think your assessment of Dr. Greger's position on antioxidants is flawed. One of his oldest videos (published 7 years ago) reaches the same conclusion as your Harvard article: > The studies so far are inconclusive, but generally don’t provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease. > At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—all rich in networks of antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many of these scourges of aging. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-vitamin-supplements/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-vitamin-suppleme... > With two notable exceptions we should try to get nutrients from produce, not pills. In fact, he even comments on his own video: > I’m afraid many millions of Americans have been bamboozled by the multi-billion dollar supplement industry. I’ll be posting more videos on this–stay tuned! To affiliate him with the industry he so vehemently protests is a tragic misunderstanding. He is quite outspoken about corporate influence and lobbying, if you care to explore more of his ad-free web site. Finally, your cited study on gluten-free, casein-free diets is several years newer than his video, which I believe is an unfair comparison.
  - duckmysick 11y ago
    If I recall correctly you were looking for references supporting the claim that "any meat consumption is beneficial or healthy". I provided you with so. I didn't realize the goalposts moved in the meantime to "appealing reasons to take up meat-eating". > One of his oldest videos (published 7 years ago) reaches the same conclusion as your Harvard article I haven't seen that particular video, so it seems there are good bits on that website. My point on not taking everything for granted still stands. > He is quite outspoken about corporate influence and lobbying, if you care to explore more of his ad-free web site. I did and I found his thoughts about corporate patents [1] interesting. And I wouldn't call it "ad-free" when it tries to sell me books and DVDs. > Finally, your cited study on gluten-free, casein-free diets is several years newer than his video, which I believe is an unfair comparison. And I believe it is a fair one, for two reasons. First, while this particular video might be several years older than the study I cited, Mr Greger publishes new videos every week. He can publish a new one about recent studies. In fact, that's one of the mission of his non-profit. To provide "free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos". Second, this excuse might be ok if it was a paper book, but we're talking about a website which can be easily modified. Also, YouTube videos offer annotation feature for situations just like those. If anything, it's unfair to those who are unaware of the latest research - which is the target audience of that website. 1 - http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/09/08/plants-as-intellectual-property-patently-wrong/ http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/09/08/plants-as-intellectual-...

by noondip 11y ago

duckmysick 11y ago

Here's something about benefits of liver consumption (which is meat): > It is important to remember the other end of the nutritional spectrum: those women whose diets may be lacking in nutrients. Doyle and colleagues reported that among women on low incomes low birth weight was significantly associated with poor intakes of thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, zinc and iron, all of which (together with other nutrients such as folate and vitamin B- 12) liver provides in generous amounts at low cost. Fetal nutritional insufficiency, low birth weight, and the associated risk of defects is thus likely to be a far greater problem on a population basis than the risk of defect associated with vitamin A toxicity. > Most women do not need to take vitamin A supplements either before or during pregnancy, and those who do should be under medical supervision. There is justifiable concern about the excessive concentrations of vitamin A in liver, but it is equally important to remember that liver is a source of many nutrients and a desirable adjunct to the diets of many women, particularly those on low incomes. [1] As for Mr Greger, I've checked out his work following your recommendation. His section about antioxidants doesn't instill confidence. The claims about wonder properties of antioxidants (preventing cancer being the primary one) are oft-repeated across the site, but this optimism should be more reserved: > Randomized, placebo-controlled trials—which, when performed well, provide the strongest evidence—offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest such trials have been mostly negative. [2] The videos on Mr Greger site quote only one paper about the preventive effects of antioxidants. The other studies which don't support this premise are omitted. Since antioxidant industry is significant ($65 billion in 2012 in the US alone [3]), this is not only a nice-sounding rhetoric, but a clever marketing as well. At first I thought such sloppy reporting was only limited to one topic on this site. But there might be more. For example, the link between milk and autism [4] is also not as clear as it's being made on the website: > In autism spectrum disorders, many parents resort to alternative treatments and these are generally perceived as risk free. Among these, the most commonly used is the gluten-free, casein-free diet. The objective of this work was to conduct a systematic review of studies published from 1970 to date related to the gluten-free, casein-free diet in autism spectrum disorder patients. Few studies can be regarded as providing sound scientific evidence since they were blinded randomized controlled trials, and even these were based on small sample sizes, reducing their validity. We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak. We recommend that it should be only used after the diagnosis of an intolerance or allergy to foods containing the allergens excluded in gluten-free, casein-free diets. Future research should be based on this type of design, but with larger sample sizes. [5] I wouldn't take everything on this site for granted. 1 - Nelson, Michael. "Vitamin A, liver consumption, and risk of birth defects." BMJ 301, no. 6762 (1990): 1176-1176. 2 - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/ 3 - http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/personal-care-surges-in-65-billion-antioxidant-products-market-1640199.htm http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/personal-care-surge... 4 - http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-milk-casomorphin-and-autism/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-milk-casomorphin-and-au... 5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114

noondip 11y ago
That liver article is really a stretch. The two studies I've found which reference it simply say consumption of liver or vitamin A supplements should be limited to avoid excess exposure to retinol, although may be used as a last resort for nutrition in poor populations, and is also not teratogenic in pregnant women. Not very appealing reasons to take up meat-eating, in my opinion. I think your assessment of Dr. Greger's position on antioxidants is flawed. One of his oldest videos (published 7 years ago) reaches the same conclusion as your Harvard article: > The studies so far are inconclusive, but generally don’t provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease. > At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—all rich in networks of antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many of these scourges of aging. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-vitamin-supplements/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-vitamin-suppleme... > With two notable exceptions we should try to get nutrients from produce, not pills. In fact, he even comments on his own video: > I’m afraid many millions of Americans have been bamboozled by the multi-billion dollar supplement industry. I’ll be posting more videos on this–stay tuned! To affiliate him with the industry he so vehemently protests is a tragic misunderstanding. He is quite outspoken about corporate influence and lobbying, if you care to explore more of his ad-free web site. Finally, your cited study on gluten-free, casein-free diets is several years newer than his video, which I believe is an unfair comparison.
- duckmysick 11y ago
  If I recall correctly you were looking for references supporting the claim that "any meat consumption is beneficial or healthy". I provided you with so. I didn't realize the goalposts moved in the meantime to "appealing reasons to take up meat-eating". > One of his oldest videos (published 7 years ago) reaches the same conclusion as your Harvard article I haven't seen that particular video, so it seems there are good bits on that website. My point on not taking everything for granted still stands. > He is quite outspoken about corporate influence and lobbying, if you care to explore more of his ad-free web site. I did and I found his thoughts about corporate patents [1] interesting. And I wouldn't call it "ad-free" when it tries to sell me books and DVDs. > Finally, your cited study on gluten-free, casein-free diets is several years newer than his video, which I believe is an unfair comparison. And I believe it is a fair one, for two reasons. First, while this particular video might be several years older than the study I cited, Mr Greger publishes new videos every week. He can publish a new one about recent studies. In fact, that's one of the mission of his non-profit. To provide "free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos". Second, this excuse might be ok if it was a paper book, but we're talking about a website which can be easily modified. Also, YouTube videos offer annotation feature for situations just like those. If anything, it's unfair to those who are unaware of the latest research - which is the target audience of that website. 1 - http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/09/08/plants-as-intellectual-property-patently-wrong/ http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/09/08/plants-as-intellectual-...