From the SpearheadFiles
December 9, 2009
Lies, untruths, misconceptions, deception, propaganda and misinformation. These are all primary characteristics of our modern mass media “news” and “info-tainment.” Of course, the best way to pass off all these illusions as reality is to always make these claims on the basis of unquestionable authority. It used to be the rulers of any given society used the concept of “GOD” or “GODS” to utilize the appeal to unquestionable authority to get their subjects to do what they desired of them.
Whether you believe in religion or not, one cannot look at human history and ignore the role of religion as social and behavioral control by the power structure of the church/state. Indeed, the rulers of any society have always understood the role of playing to people’s beliefs to manipulate and control their behavior.
The biggest illusion that has been effected by the rulers of our current dystopia is the delusion that we live in a secular society that has separated church from the State, and that we are all better off for it.
No, what has actually been done, was to delude the masses into accepting a NEW church and State power structure…and that “church” is the idea of SCIENCE playing the role of being the ultimate arbiter for guiding human behavior. Where the rulers of the past wielded authority “In the Name of God,” we now live in a world where the dynamic is exactly the same – but now the appeal is “In the Name of Science.” But it’s all a grand lie.
There are observable truths and reproducible results to testing hypothesis, that most of us recognize as the foundation for the “Scientific Method.” Indeed, you won’t find me trying to argue that there are many things mankind understands, and many technological advances that have been engineered and invented thanks to the rigid application of the Scientific Method by intellectually honest scientists.
The “grand lie” that is promoted by politicians, Government agencies, corporations, foundations, and of course the mainstream media, is to get the masses to believe something has been proven by scientists using the scientific method. In many cases, it’s really just a rhetorical sleight of hand…a shell game.
Here are some common phrases used by the media/Government/Corporate Commercial interests to play this game of subtle mind manipulation:
“Research has shown…”
“Studies indicate…”
“The latest research…”
“A brand new study…”
The real problem here is that in many cases, a very real study using a very rigorous application of the scientific method to produce a testable result that either proves or disproves a hypothesis has been done. Many great discoveries, inventions and revelations have helped mankind by doing exactly this. But in many of these cases, the scientific method was NOT used.
Actual research using a control group and double-blind studies have not been conducted. Many times, what is done, is to use “statistical analysis” of data and information that either was gathered for some other study, or a deliberately misleading study was conducted, designed from the start to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Then, when the latest corporate press release, or public service announcement by the Government or some non-profit foundation is made, it uses those types of aforementioned phrases…and the average, dumbed down sheeple consumer mindlessly accepts those pronouncements as “SCIENTIFIC FACTS” and they unwittingly and naively change their behavior based on what becomes conventional wisdom…
…all IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE.
If you recognize the truth in what I just wrote, you can actually step back and look at so many assumptions, ideas and things that you “just know” and realize that this subversive mind control has in fact been carried out on us in virtually every aspect of our modern, 21st century lives. It IS the defining zeitgeist of our Brave New World Order.
I’ve come to this realization through an intensive personal effort to research dietary truths out of a desire to attain better health and physical well being for myself. Doing my due diligence in researching this, I do believe I’ve seen exactly just how far this rabbit hole does go.
Before I was able to comprehend the scope of the deception and manipulation, I had to first wake up to the fact that by following the “conventional wisdom” was making me become exactly what I was trying to avoid in the first place – fat, overweight, out of shape and in poor physical health.
Throughout my entire 20’s and early 30’s, I was what I THOUGHT was a conscientious, healthy eater. Yet over those years, a slowly but surely kept gaining weight until I reached the point of either figuring out how to lose weight…or begin to start shopping for a new wardrobe to fit my expanding waist.
That truly was the very beginning of my journey into awareness, culminating in the realization that we do in fact live in a world of deliberately promulgated delusion to lead us all astray for the benefit of those who would promote such lies.
Here are a few of the lies I unquestionably accepted and followed when I thought I was eating “healthy:”
– Red Meat is bad for you.
- Saturated Fat is bad for you.
- A Plant-based diet, or being as “vegetarian” as you can - is optimal.
- That “Greasy” food is why so many people are obese and sickly.
To summarize what I learned — before I delve into the details here – THE biggest corporate business interest in the world besides “BIG OIL” is “BIG AGRICULTURE.”
And their influence on the Government, the mass media and society as a whole and their beliefs regarding diet and nutrition is far reaching and ubiquitous. It has hopelessly corrupted the medical and healthcare industries. It has hopelessly corrupted the Government. And a wide variety of interests have profited immensely from this, while literally millions of people have suffered ill health, disease and death because they THOUGHT they were following the dietary wisdom promulgated IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE.
To make a long story short, my research on the internet lead me to the principles of a “Primal” or “Paleo-lithic” diet. Lots of animal meat, and loads of saturated fat, no processed foods, no sugars or vegetable oils, and limiting carbohydrates to lots of deep green vegetables.
The idea that I could eat bacon and eggs and cheese and ham and sausage every day, along with generous heaps of full fat sour cream, full fat yogurt, lots of butter, and heavy cream in my coffee and LOSE weight blew me away. I couldn’t get passed my indoctrinated programming at first. Everything I read was counter to all of the accumulated “wisdom” of dietary conventional wisdom I’d been indoctrinated with over the years. I used margarine instead of butter. “Lite” coffee creamer. “Lite” sour cream or sour cream substitute. Everything I bought and ate was “Low Fat” or “Non-Fat” or “Lite.” I would eat Turkey Bacon, and use ground turkey for any food recipes that called for ground beef, under the notion that lean, low-fat meat was healthier. And I would go for days at a time eating vegetarian meals, eschewing meat and fat, thinking I was eating healthy.
And yet I kept getting fatter and fatter.
And it’s not that I was a lazy gluttonous slob either. I’ve been physically active my entire adult life…I work out a minimum of 4 times a week, often times 6 days a week. And yet the more “plant based” I tried to make my diet, and the harder I worked out, the fatter I continued to get.
So at first, upon discovering “Primal” dietary advice, I was very hesitant to try it out…but I eventually did. I began to eat a high protein/high saturated fat diet, while limiting my carbohydrates, sugars, vegetable oils and eschewing almost all processed, packaged foods. And I lost over 40 lbs. in a 3 month period.
And yet…I STILL couldn’t believe what I was seeing on my bathroom scale or in the mirror. Part of me would think “Ok, I lost all this weight…but aren’t I clogging my arteries and setting myself up for high cholesterol, heart disease cancer and diabetes?”
Than I REALLY began to do my research…and here’s where we really get to the meat of the matter (pun intended!)
Let’s start with this idea often cited by articles, PSA’s, and news stories – that Red Meat causes cancer: From the National Cancer Institute
The first graph displayed on that page purports to show the amount of meat eaten by individuals that participated in the survey. From the reference to that first graph, I’m able to google up the website of the source of that questionnaire used to generate this graph…which is the basic means of gathering information used for the statistical analysis that eventually lead to “experts” promoting the propaganda that red meat causes cancer.
Here’s the actual questionnaire (PDF) used to gather the data.
The food frequency portion of the questionnaire begins on page 176 of the PDF document. Here’s the standard question structure used for all of the questionnaire’s survey on food:
During the past year or so, how many times per day, week, month or year, did you usually eat/drink {food or beverage}:
____ Times per (check one) __ Day __ Week __ Month __ Year __ Less than 6 a year or never
How can such a study take a generalized question structure like this and even hope to get “accurate” data, to recommend making such life changing behaviors to people? Can YOU remember how many times you ate steak in the past year? Hot Dogs? Pizza?
Furthermore, there is almost no distinction between quality of food! It asks about fried foods…but no distinction about what oils it is fried in nor at what temperatures (who could remember that anyways? Do you know what kind of oil your french fries were made in a year ago at that one McDonalds you had lunch at?)
It asks about food like Pizza. Is there not substantial difference between cheap, frozen pizza versus home-delivered vs. home made? And is not the toppings of a pizza, and the ingredients for the crust extremely variable?
It asks about how many times a year a person ate “Hamburgers, Cheeseburgers or Meatloaf.” Again, the ingredients used to make these food items could be extremely variable.
And I didn’t even get to the validity of bias selection in this survey. Look at the entire size of this survey. Frankly, I’m stunned that they supposedly found 500,000 people that willingly sat there for the amount of time required to fill out this questionnaire in it’s entirety.
Finally, no matter how accurate these self-reported results are, can you not see the very fundamental flaw regarding the methodology?
That one could supposedly look at the sum totality of a reported diet, and point to red meat as the culprit?
Yet this is precisely how all of those claims you encounter that red meat or saturated fats are bad for you…they do not conduct a scientific study using a control group and feed one group a lot of meat and saturated fats, while another group eats a vegetarian diet for a long period of time and than figure out which group had higher rates of cancer and/or heart disease. No, that would be an actual scientific experiment.
No, what we have here is essentially a marketing-style survey and a statistical analysis. What was that saying again about there being lies, damn lies and than there are statistics?
This is precisely why every time you hear/read/see reports that promote the idea that red meat or saturated fat is a health hazard, they always use weaselly qualifiers:
“Researchers have linked high intake of fat from red meat and dairy products with increased risk of pancreatic cancer, in a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”
Or
“Research has shown that people who eat a diet free of animal products, high in plant foods, and low in fat have a much lower risk of developing cancer.”
So remember folks…the next time your in the grocery store, don’t forget your plant-based high fructose corn syrup, your plant-based soybean oil margarine, your plant based, fortified cereal and your plant-based soymilk and your plant-based potato chips fried in plant-based cottonseed oil…you wouldn’t want to eat real food like meat or dairy and get cancer!
Notable Commentary from the Original Post
Chuck December 9, 2009 at 03:25
I have been assailed by a number of foreign co-workers who chastize me every time they see me eating KC strip steak and even chicken. They are vegetarians and have even converted my girlfriend.
I don’t usually rely on personal anecdotes to prove points to myself, but I’m healthier than all of them despite my “crappy” diet so I have always figured that the “red meat is bad” meme isn’t necessarily true.
What are some facts I can point to concerning red meat’s health? Also, what about cholesterol and overall heart health? One thing I’ve questioned about the Paleolithic Diet is that in our “savanna” days, there likely wasn’t as much red meat around as there was game and fowl. Is it not possible then that we aren’t efficiently adapted to handle red meat?
Fascinating subject.
piercedhead December 9, 2009 at 03:47
An interesting thing to consider for those wanting to go on a plant-based diet is the effect it has on the bowels.
Compare the grass-eating cow to the meat-eating dog. Cow turd is usually a paste-like substance that is often ejected at high speeds and the cow’s rear-end is a mess. If dairy farmers didn’t hose them down every day there would be a thick build-up of drying crusty material.
Dogs have small, compact solid poop. It tends to clear easily and dogs don’t suffer from dags like grazing animals.
The very same effect occurs with people, based on what they eat. If you go on a plant-based diet, prepare yourself for something similar to continuous diarrhea and gas.
Paul December 9, 2009 at 03:59
The above article is very perceptive. I think I would go further. The so called scientific method is applied to things that are in essence ‘non scientific’. For example measurements that involve people answering questions can hardly be said to be scientific. Recently there was much discussion as to whether people where happier that before. But how can such a question be answered ? How can I judge if I am happier? Happiness can not be measured with am happiness meter. I can only only give an opinion at an instance that could well be different tomorrow.
Although this is perhaps not the best example that could be given it illustrates what I am trying to say. There is world of difference between measuring the charge on an electron and measuring happiness.
I think herein lies the root of the deception. This deception is to think that the rigour and success seen in the physical sciences is some how paralleled in all the other things that misappropriate the scientific badge.
But the author is right. Claiming something is ’scientific’ has the same effect as saying ‘God says’ in so much as we are still in effect having to take things on faith. Few if any of us will have any idea what so ever as to what the science was, we merely take the word of scientist who have become the new oracles.
One can exercise judgement in these things. I would for example accept the word coming from the Hadron accelerator should they claim to have seen the Higgs particle even though I did not do the experiment myself. But I would not put any such faith in much else that I am told.
djc December 9, 2009 at 04:21
I suspected all of this as a child. And now that I’m older, I know it’s true. Just about everything is complete BS. It’s like living in the Matrix. Most people I talk to about this stuff think I’m crazy, or just have a negative attitude. After all, they couldn’t possibly be dumb enough to have the wool pulled over their eyes. Yeah, right.
Krauser December 9, 2009 at 04:32
My favourite pithy observation on this topic:
We should invert the usual term and call it “policy-based evidence making”
And don’t say good things about science. It just devalues women’s ways of knowing. You sexist.
Zammo December 9, 2009 at 05:11
What, you guys don’t know that logic and reason are tools of the patriarchy used to oppress women?
The scientific method hits women hardest.
ramzpaul December 9, 2009 at 05:20
I happened to do a video concerning this topic and “climate change.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCXmNmGyPSs
Wobs December 9, 2009 at 05:54
And yet in the book Why Men Don’t Iron, it points out that men have more need for red meat than women. And at a time when we are all told that we should eat less red meat (with little evidence to support it), it seems we are moving to a diet that fits the female rather than the male. z.g. December 9, 2009 at 06:17
The more I research the diet, the more I come to the belief that the food industry has shaken hands with the medicine industry.
My friends who look at me like I am a freak when I eat that beef in coconut oil, and make jokes about my diet when I refuse the pizza on the table are sick once, twice a month for few days, beer gut, wheat gut, or they are skinny, unable to pack on muscle.
Their skin looks older than mine, though I am the one who is five years older, their body proportions are more like a child’s than a man’s.
I tell them about evolution, they say “but” I tell them about grains, they say “but” Whatever I tell them, I get a “but”.
the proof in front of their eyes is not seen by them.
Sixpack, shining skin, horniness through the roof, mental stability, strength, no sickness…
But no.
We need grains, we need potatoes, bread, pasta, I eat too much meat, the coconut fat is only good as a skin cream and so on.
I am healthy, you are sick.
what else is there to prove?
These, incidentally are the same people who are unwilling to look at female sexuality from a red pill perspective.
Guess to open your eyes to anything else than what you’ve been brainwashed needs the out of the box thinker.
(Anyway, I have noticed socialism, vegetarianism, feminism etc, are fully suitable for in box thinkers)
There is a new google groups called “Libertarian paleo” or something like that. It makes sense.
Good luck finding many lefties in game too.
Out of the box. you got to be thinking out of the box.
Kevin K December 9, 2009 at 06:32
I have some quibbles with this. One, the FDA always makes a point of making a distinction between whole grains and refined carbs. In particularly, they’ve always defined refined carbs as “empty calories.” Trying to blame scientists (or more accurately nutritionists and physicians) for people think pasta and white bread is better than meat is disingenuous. People don’t generally get fat on whole grains because they don’t taste as good.
Second, there are lots of things in science where its just impossible to do a “double-blind” experiment, but there different avenues to convince yourself you understand what’s going on. For instance, we have lots of models of star structure based on nuclear physics data and knowledge of gravity, but you can’t build a star in a lab. You just have the radiation spectrum and astronomical data to go by. Similarly, the whole field of medicine is confined by the hippocratic oath. There is only so much experimentation you can do on humans and medical records are only so good for analysis. Saying that you need double-blind experiments to believe anything is to basically throw away 50% of what we know about medical treatment.
Black&German December 9, 2009 at 06:35
The God-focus was better because it was based upon 2000+ years of human experience.
We also switched from a plant-based diet to a traditional Bavarian diet a few years ago. My children were too skinny and my husband and I were getting fat. The kids are at a healthy weight now and I’m steadily losing weight (although, like you I’m surprised by that fact). My husband was also for a while, but lately he’s been hitting the baked goods a little too hard, LOL. He’s a carbo-junkie. Ah, the dangers of Advent.
Butter, meat, whole-grain sourdough bread (home baked), oatmeal, eggs, whole milk and dairy, and vegetables on the side. It’s more filling so I eat a lot less and don’t have less cravings for sweets like I used to. I also have a heck of a lot more energy so I’m more active. Before I had trouble even getting out of bed in the morning.
Black&German December 9, 2009 at 06:46
Kevin,
I see your point, but it just means that you have to take the results with a grain of salt. Even within medicine it is not uncommon for 5 different studies to reach 5 different conclusions. That doesn’t mean that the information gleaned is useless, merely that it is not conclusive.
I agree about whole-grains (and legumes, for that matter). They are an important part of a nutritional diet as they provide nutrients and fiber that are difficult to get otherwise. But they should be in addition to meat, not as a substitute.
Phoenixism December 9, 2009 at 08:25
Excellent.
The self-destructive dogma which the food industry has inculcated through generations of consumers is so deeply ingrown that I don’t see a way out of this mess for a long time.
For my part, all I can possibly do is attempt to teach my 12-year-old son important points of nutrition (which are counter-intuitively shocking to someone as he). Sure, like any boy his age he loves to eat his fair share of crap, but I think I’ve begun to break through the armor since the food matrix never had a chance to seize him completely.
At his age, self-preservation is not priority #1 but I just hope as he gets older that I’ve taught him some habits which will allow him to prosper while his non-fat milk / diet soda – drinking cohorts are starting to falter.
Thanks for the links – also, check out:
“The Omnivore’s Dilemna” an interesting insight into our food culture’s slow surrender to the dangerous food industry
“Eat Stop Eat” an e-book by Brad Pilon on the mechanics and practice of intermittent fasting.
Reinholt December 9, 2009 at 09:05
Regarding studies…
Most find random chance. There is an infamous paper that I occasionally rattle the cages of scientists with about just how few medical studies turn out to be true…
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#JOURNAL-PMED-0020124-B36
The results, surprisingly, generalize to many other fields.
Science is fraught with problems of bias; my lone caution would simply be that I have noticed it is also a very common error to assume that if one group’s argument is wrong, then the opposite conclusion must be true.
Most of the time, we just don’t know.
Firepower December 9, 2009 at 10:55
“Science” has made the critical error of degenerating into politicized arguements as religion does.
Dogma is believed by no one but its adherents.
The very fact that flow chart needs to be constantly emphasized even in “The Internet Age” indicates the complete failure of common sense, not to mention true science.
Watch TV
Mr.M December 9, 2009 at 11:02
Keoni,
have you had your cholesterol/blood pressure/glucose levels checked recently? I figure that would pretty decisively answer anyone’s concerns about the effect of eating so much saturated fat.
Personally, I’ve only been eating Paleo (Keto, more specifically) for ~1.5 months, but lost 15 lbs pretty easily (no loss on weight strength) – my main concern was the effect eating 8 eggs/4 strips of bacon/3 tbsp of butter or oil/1lb of meat daily would have on my cholesterol.
Tested myself yesterday and came back with 160 overall cholesterol and 44 HDL (they oddly didn’t test LDL/triglycerides); which are considered “healthy” levels. Blood pressure/pulse/glucose were in the norm, too. Still 20lbs from my target weight, as well.
Anyway – It was interesting to reconfirm the paleo theories through actual tests; I’ll admit it, I was slightly worried my cholesterol would be through the roof. This just further solidified my belief that conventional wisdom is all bunk. Hestia December 9, 2009 at 11:43
Tested myself yesterday and came back with 160 overall cholesterol and 44 HDL (they oddly didn’t test LDL/triglycerides); which are considered “healthy” levels. Blood pressure/pulse/glucose were in the norm, too. Still 20lbs from my target weight, as well.
My dad had similar results after switching to a more fat rich diet. Prior to the switch he had actually had blood pressure and cholesterol levels that were on the rise and his doctor was bringing up the possibility of medication. Afterward his levels were healthful again and his doctor can’t believe the change.
My husband and I have also had good tests post-diet switch, but that’s hardly impressive as we’re in our twenties, keep fit, and likely wouldn’t be experiencing high blood pressure at this point in our lives anyway. ;) Both of us have difficulty keeping weight on with this fat-rich diet and we’re both in much better physical shape than we ever have been. And
FWIW, I ate the high fat, low carb diet during my pregnancy with our daughter. She wound up being born early at thirty five weeks but was six pounds, 21.5 inches long, and required no time in the NICU. Her intervention and pain med-free birth was ridiculously easy for me, especially as a first time mother and I never had any supply issues while breastfeeding, despite the fact many women do struggle with this. Peapod has eaten this way her entire little life and has been ill twice; once with an ear infection after our house fire last year and another time with a slight cold and fever for twenty four hours. While I can’t say the diet was the primary factor in any of this, the research I have done on nutrition would lead me to the conclusion a proper diet has played at least a small part.
lurker December 9, 2009 at 12:03
Interesting.
I remeber back in school I would eat a pint of ice cream for dinner after a light lunch, or else eat large meal from Burger King. Nothing more. I lost a ton of weight and was fucking like a mad man. When I attempted to get onto a “normal” diet, my energy plummted and I gained weight.
menareangrynow December 9, 2009 at 12:10
I did the vegetarian thing for a year or so, and after having done it, I don’t know why it’s so popular. If you think about it, all it is is an incredibly unbalanced diet, which is reliant on only a few food groups, and ignores the other ones completely. Some of the healthiest regions in the world are that way, not because of eating fatty foods; but, because of getting enough exercise to burn all of the fat, and utilize all of the energy from those calories. To be healthy, eat hearty to be strong, and be active to be well; that’s my two cents.
Gx1080 December 9, 2009 at 12:14
Tacking “An studio shows” to orders to the cattle isn’t much different to tackling “It’s God’s will”. The former offends me because is a mockery to the scientific method, the latter really offends me because is a basic violation of faith in God:
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain
And why I am not surprised that bread based-diets are a lie.
Tarl December 9, 2009 at 12:29
I’ve been eating paleo for about 4-5 months and have lost 25lbs even though I’m not all that hard core about it. Have a checkup coming up next week, and will see then about cholesterol levels. =)
The most painful thing was giving up pasta. I love Italian food in all its forms!
Jabherwochie December 9, 2009 at 13:11
“One thing I’ve questioned about the Paleolithic Diet is that in our “savanna” days, there likely wasn’t as much red meat around as there was game and fowl.”
Actually, meat is what allowed our brains to evolve so fast into our modern human intellectual capacity. The brain consumes some 30% of our caloric intake. Once we, as monkey men, began to hunt, boom, the IQ race took off, and the smarter monkey men wiped out the less smart monkey men. Once we evolved into our modern homosapian form, we were already excellent hunters. It was the primary task of males to hunt. We did clever things, like chase down deer. How? Endurance. As a bipedal animal with not hair, running is more effecient and our heat regulation is superior. A deer might be able to run twice as fast as us, but on the plains where we could see them in the distance, we could run 4 times as long as them. Eventually they would collapse in exhaustion and we would walk up to the and spear them. Easy peasy. We would chase herds of animals off of cliffs. Mucho meat. Taking down one mammoth alone provided meat for large numbers until the meat went bad, and in the cold climates it could last a while longer. Remember, we were hunter gatherers, and as a super predator, we hunted and ate everything. We had lots of meat. Agriculture changed that. We are meat eaters who should supplant our diet with fruits and vegetables. Grain stuff is the new tech. Its the stuff we are less evolved for.
Jabherwochie December 9, 2009 at 13:12
I should say red meat was common. We hunted larger animals mostly. The junior cavemen probably brought in foul and fish. The grown men went for the largest animals possible. We are humans. We think big. We act bold.
Jabherwochie December 9, 2009 at 13:13
This is somewhat speculative and somewhat based on analysis of evolutionary biology. I think we had plenty of meat up to 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
Jabherwochie December 9, 2009 at 13:14
Maybe 6 to 8 thousand. When was agriculture invented again?
Jabherwochie December 9, 2009 at 13:22
I would add, that status already plays an important role in primate groups. Following that logic, the caveman who brought in the biggest game gained the most status. More red meat, more alpha.
Welmer December 9, 2009 at 13:27
Meat isn’t a big problem. However, the kind of meat we eat today is definitely different from what your typical paleolithic hunter consumed. The game was lean and tough, which is why cavemen really craved marrow, brains and organ meat. Fat was the delectable ingredient that everyone wanted, and fat from wild animals and fish tends to be higher in the healthy lipids than it is in corn-fed beef.
InternetWood December 9, 2009 at 13:31
Today’s feature from the Internet…….
is this thread. Specifically the advice about what to eat. Might as well read them all.
Can we have a Nutrition category for the Spearhead? With specific threads for specific diet advice?
Black&German December 9, 2009 at 13:37
10,000 years ago, I think.
Cholesterol gets a bad rap sometimes, too. There’s nothing wrong with cholesterol and it’s important for our brains to function optimally. It’s only when cholesterol levels get out-of-whack that it’s a problem.
My son’s behavior has improved dramatically since we increased the fat and cholesterol in his diet. I think he was undernourished before. If he starts acting up I just give him a slice of bread with a thick layer of butter on top, a chunk of brie, or a bowl of nuts and he calms down immediately. He looks much healthier now, too. But we’re all physically active, as well, which is important.
Black&German December 9, 2009 at 13:39
Buffalo meat is a good alternative to industry beef. So is wild game like deer. We buy free-range beef from a local farmer in bulk. That stuff is soooooo good.
Globalman December 9, 2009 at 15:05
pretty much all mainstream scientists are guvment shills…period.
Chris December 9, 2009 at 15:52
The anti meat kick people get on is always amusing. If you actually look at nature you’ll see animals……eating meat……all the time. Eating meat is natural, there is nothing wrong or unhealthy about it. In fact it IS healthy.
There are 2 problems which causes people to think somehow eating meat is unhealthy. The first is a problem that goes for food in general: We consume way more food than we need. We do not eat simply for survival or what is necessary. We eat all the time and consume more than our bodies are made to handle. We eat just to eat, bc we’re bored or upset or just bc there’s food around. It’s not so healthy. Especially when you are eating just a narrow minded selection of food.
The second problem is that most meat people consume is absolute garbage. It is made from animals that are made sick, injected with endless hormones that are unhealthy and then saturated with endless chemicals some of which are made to simply cause people to be hungry and become addicted to the crappy food. So when the subject of meat being bad is brought up, it is not the fact that people are eating meat, it is what type of meat they are eating.
anonymous December 9, 2009 at 16:58
Nothing at all here worthy of The Spearhead. It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re off topic – far, far off topic. And wrong.
Phoenixism December 9, 2009 at 21:01
anonymous, wearing blinders? Focusing on the physical health of the specimen is off-topic?
@Black & German…buffalo must be grass-fed by law. If they were corn-fed like the rest of the bovine industrial food chain, their flesh would be shit too.
Dan December 10, 2009 at 01:53
Thanks for the read, it’s nice to see a post regarding health on here! If you haven’t read it already, In Defense Of Food is a great book exactly on this topic. Many of the same points you made have been spelled out in the book as well, with quite a depth of information to go alongside.
Black&German December 10, 2009 at 10:35
Phoenixism, I know. We buy grass-fed free-range beef from a farm just down the street. And it is of excellent quality. Superior to the buffalo, even. But I find the leaner buffalo meat makes better burgers.
ElectricAngel December 10, 2009 at 13:01
A few thoughts. Back in 2001, I did Atkins. Bacon (from ethically raised pigs only, please, no factory-fed hogs!), steak, cream in my coffee but no milk or half and half, salad, but nothing that was carb-heavy. I lost weight, gained energy, and my blood numbers went the best that I have had them since then: triglycerides (these are the important numbers, moreso than cholesterol) in single digits, cholesterol and blood sugars very low. The diet does not seem to be as female-friendly; my wife could not handle the meat.
Red meat can well cause cancer, if consumed without fiber. That salad in the Atkins diet is as important as the meat consumption. Without enough fiber to push through, waste sits too long in the intestines, a major risk factor for increased rates of cancer.
Lastly, in the 10,000 Year Explosion, the authors offer a number of plausible scenarios in which agriculture has changed human evolution. One I recall is that the landed aristocracy in societies like ancient China essentially “raised” peasants, seeking those who could live on a high-plant diet and be docile, and so essentially “selected” for people who could survive on plant-based diets. When Ancel Keys and researchers were looking for people who had low rates of heart disease, the descendants of these Chinese plant eaters were one group, and so they pushed the plant-based idea for Westerners. This is an absolute disaster, as one thing the authors point out is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans likely conquered so much of the planet (one third to one half of the planet speaks an Indo-European language) because they had a gene that allowed them to digest lactose into adulthood; this allowed them to outcompete people who had to kill their grazing animals, as milking grazers makes for a more efficient conversion of land to protein. (It also turned them into “mampires.”) Going primal might also reflect genetic differences in races, with only Caucasians and some Africans (Masai) benefiting from milk and protein-heavy diets. (There’s also an ancient story here of Cain, the farmer, finding his diet unfavorable to God, but nevertheless killing off his grazer-brother and providing the excess sustenance needed to found a city.)
Trouble December 10, 2009 at 13:14
Vegetarians always want to put out the claim that they’re healthier than meat eaters. But it’s a false equivalency. Most vegetarians live a healthier lifestyle overall than meat eaters. Most of them don’t smoke, or drink, and they jog to nowhere. Nonstop. Forever. Put up a veggie against a paleo with the same lifestyle and it’s no comparison. The paleo is stronger and healthier.
Keoni Galt December 10, 2009 at 14:32
@ Chuck – What are some facts I can point to concerning red meat’s health? Also, what about cholesterol and overall heart health?
For Cholesterol, I would refer you to The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics.
Also, Dr. The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease.
As for the health benefits of red meat…well, when it comes to grass fed as many others have pointed out here: When selecting beef, grass-fed beef that has NOT been “finished off on corn” is definitely your healthiest option as it is:
*A natural source of healthy omega-3 fats – Omega-3s in cattle that feed on grass is 7 percent of the total fat content, compared to just 1 percent in grain-only fed beef. It also has the optimal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats (3:1)
* High in CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid); a fat that reduces your risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and a number of immune disorders
* Full of beta carotene
* Loaded with over 400 percent more of vitamins A and E
* Virtually devoid of risk of Mad Cow Disease and E. Coli Bacteria.
@ Mr. M – I haven’t done my bloodwork recently…but when I was about a year into my lifestyle change (while I do call it the “primal diet” it’s NOT a diet. It’s a way of life.), I did get my blood work done out of curiosity.
My results were – Total Chol: 255 Triglycerides: 122 HDL: 63 Calculated LDL: 168 Cholesterol/HDL ration: 4.0.
So according to conventional medical wisdom, I have a HIGH risk in total cholesterol, high triglycerides…but my Total Cholesterol to HDL ratio as way below average risk for heart disease. In short, as the primal diet proponents preach – elevated cholesterol levels don’t matter, as long as your HDL is much higher than your LDL, the HDL will protect you from any buildup of LDL.
Another factor that is also not tested for in typical cholesterol testing is the size and density of the LDL. The small, dense particles are the type implicated in clogging of arteries.
Oh, and unless they run a more expensive test, LDL cholesterol is calculated rather than actually measured. To caldulate LDL, they use the Friedewald equation. This will lead to an inaccurate result if you’re a “primal eater” and your triclyceride levels are either below 100 or above 400 mg/dl. One of the biggest proponents of Primal eating is Dr. Michael Eades, and his blog “Protein Power” has a great article about cholesterol, the measuring and LDL and about the use of the Friedewald equation would make for an inaccurate reading of ldl for people eating a Primal Diet .
@ z.g. – This is EXACTLY my experience. Even for people that literally saw me lose all that weight and seen the differences in my physical endurance and capabilities…they still can’t believe all that saturated fat and protein I eat are “good” for me. However, after cooking food for some friends using coconut oil, and grass fed beef and whole milk, unpasteurized cheeses…they are admitting to me that my food was better than most restaurant food they eat.
@ B&G – I eat Buffalo meat all the time as well. It makes for fantastic burgers.
@ Chris – There are 2 problems which causes people to think somehow eating meat is unhealthy. The first is a problem that goes for food in general: We consume way more food than we need. We do not eat simply for survival or what is necessary. We eat all the time and consume more than our bodies are made to handle. We eat just to eat, bc we’re bored or upset or just bc there’s food around. It’s not so healthy. Especially when you are eating just a narrow minded selection of food.
Chris, while I agree wholeheartedly with your second point, this first one you made is faulty…when you eat a natural, saturated fat laden foods, your body signals you are full when you actually are. Once you eat naturally, you literally reach the point for which you simply CAN’T overeat. I eat until I’m full at every single meal. The difference is, when you eat a lot of carbohydrates, your body doesn’t recognize it as essential nutrients so your satiation signal doesn’t work properly. This is why you can eat a huge plate of pasta or noodles (or rice or bread or mashed potatos) and still feel hungry. So you keep eating. Than a few minutes later, you suddenly get that “stomach is gonna burst” feeling and you just want to lie down and pass out. That’s because you’ve overeaten because the carbs don’t trigger your “full” signal properly. Eating a diet rich in healthy meats and fats will keep you from overeating because your satiation signaling process will accurately tell you when to stop eating because you’ve had enough.
@ Electric Angel - Red meat can well cause cancer, if consumed without fiber.
Wrong. Preserved, processed meat full of additives and other chemicals could contribute to cancer, but the whole you need “FIBER” is a lie. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of vegetables in your diet are certainly good for you…but the idea that not eating vegetables would cause constipation and cancer is simply a false one.
Given a high quality source of meat, you could actually live off of a 100% meat diet. The Masai in Africa, the traditional Inuit Indians, and during Buffalo migration season, the Lakota would all live off nothing more than animal meat and fat. All of the essential vitamins and nutrients you need can be derived from an all meat diet…if you’re eating meat from animals that are eating what THEY were designed to.
ElectricAngel December 11, 2009 at 12:23
HL,
First, since I haven’t said it elsewhere, thanks for your articles on relationship game.
Two points further on red meat. 1) It can seriously damage male health due to iron overload. Women are fortunate in this regard thanks to menstruation. See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi65.html
2) Given a high quality source of meat, you could actually live off of a 100% meat diet. The Masai in Africa, the traditional Inuit Indians, and during Buffalo migration season, the Lakota would all live off nothing more than animal meat and fat. All of the essential vitamins and nutrients you need can be derived from an all meat diet…if you’re eating meat from animals that are eating what THEY were designed to.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes. Note that the cultures you’re talking about generally eat their meat raw (that’s how the Inuit got their vitamin C with no vegetables); the Masai generally do not eat their male cattle, except for rare celebrations, when they cook it, preferring to drink the blood of their males and the milk of their females (not coincidentally, they, along with the Indo-Europeans, are lactose tolerant.), so making even more efficient conversion of grazing land to protein than milkers. Eating raw meat (and anything raw) necessarily means that you avoid the often carcinogenic results of cooking, a benefit that is often offset by the pathogens that can be introduced in an unclean food chain, especially in a world where governments commoditize food (and men!); cooking also releases more caloric content, breaking down the food so that more of it is digested. I had assumed the context was a typical Western diet adding more cooked feedlot beef; throw more of that down your colon with nothing to push it out and you’ll cause endless trouble; see http://www.jstor.org/pss/3702708 for one study (I’ll grant that the issue is not definitively settled) on the increased risk for colon cancer with constipation.
Keoni Galt December 11, 2009 at 16:21
I had assumed the context was a typical Western diet adding more cooked feedlot beef; throw more of that down your colon with nothing to push it out and you’ll cause endless trouble;
Ah yes…we are actually agreeing here more than disagreeing. I don’t doubt increasing feedlot factory farmed meat with no vegetables is probably not a good idea.
That’s the reason why I just bought $60 worth of grass fed beef and buffalo last night to stock up my freezer!
Deansdale December 22, 2009 at 08:16
How f*cked up is the suggestion that you should eat less meat on Christmas because of global warming?!
http://www.bspcn.com/2009/12/20/8-tips-for-a-green-christmas/
Deansdale December 22, 2009 at 08:19
Fat Head http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1333994/ A comedian replies to the “Super Size Me” crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity “epidemic” and healthy eating is wrong.
Watch it, it’s a fun little movie.