grain fed meat

[Guest guest]

>. . . grain fed meat is very high in arachidonic acid. I am not sure

where you get the idea that many people thrive on meat. >amongst

naturopathic physicians, the consumption of grain fed meat is considered one

of the primary causes of >autoimmunity and cancer and heart disease. meat

also has a strong demographic relationship with many diseases. . . . while

>there are a number of dietary factors at play (white flour, refined sugar,

hydrogenated fat, homogenized milk), I think the > evidence is overwhelming

that grain fed meat is a big one.

 

Actually, the evidence of meat of correlating to any disease at all

is -underwhelming- from a scientific point of view, looking at the totality

of the evidence instead of cherry-picking negative studies. For several

decades now vegetarian advocates and some naturopathic writers have

selectively cited scientific literature, ignoring contradictory data, to

support their belief systems, and this has muddied the waters of the

nutritional beliefs of most of us in alternative health care. A very large

metaanalysis of meat eating and cancer, for instance, found a slight (12%)

increase in cancer risk based on demographics, a risk that disappeared when

bologna-type meats were excluded. A very large trial showed that meat eating

was protective against heart disease, and a large and growing body of

evidence shows that meat eating is protective against osteoporosis and its

worst endpoints, in stark contradition to the neo-naturopathic theory that

it causes the bones to melt down in acidified blood. I say neo-naturopathic,

because in the history of naturopathy, starting in Germany and up until the

1970's, among several dozen major figures and teachers, we find only two

vegetarian advocates, both of whom died 15-20 years before the meat eaters.

For arachidonic acid, several researchers have looked at the biochemical

pathways and tried to supplement arachidonic acid as a possible treatment

for immune deficiency. Even with a 3 month intervention at six times the

average American intake, they could not alter the clinic immune picture. As

it turns out, arachidonic acid is now considered an essential nutrient and

required in infant formulas in Europe and Japan, and it also has a

protective effect against insulin resistance.

 

I was a vegetarian advocate for many years, and adhered to the " meat as

poison " theory, but now, personally, clinically, and also looking at the

science and human anthropology honestly, I have to say that for most people,

meat, even if i'ts modern meat, and abundant protein in the diet is

essential for abundant health. By now I have case files on several hundred

individuals with chronic fatigue, insulin-resistance, allergy, mixed

anxiety/depression, neurosis, delusional thinking, and/or sugar addiction or

worse who got rid of every one of these by introducing meat and fish into

the diet in abundance and making a few other changes.

 

The biggest difference in modern and older meat (you only have to go back

50-100 years) is in the essential fatty acid content. Grass fed animals

build up EFA the same way salmon do. The other difference is in the nutrient

content. For instance every cut of beef listed by the USDA in the 1960s

contained at least some vitamin A. Today, no cut of beef contains vitamin A,

which a grass fed animal converts from the beta-carotene in the plants.

 

I find meat to be the indespensable tonic for my patients, a fundamental

tonic food in the diet of the human species over history, and including it

in the diet will often rapidly remove the need for tonic herbs in a

deficient patient.

 

Respectfully,

Paul Bergner

[Guest guest]

, " Paul Bergner " <hpmte77@m...>

wrote:

 

>

> The biggest difference in modern and older meat (you only have to go back

> 50-100 years) is in the essential fatty acid content. Grass fed animals

> build up EFA the same way salmon do. The other difference is in the nutrient

> content. For instance every cut of beef listed by the USDA in the 1960s

> contained at least some vitamin A. Today, no cut of beef contains vitamin A,

> which a grass fed animal converts from the beta-carotene in the plants.

>

> I find meat to be the indespensable tonic for my patients, a fundamental

> tonic food in the diet of the human species over history, and including it

> in the diet will often rapidly remove the need for tonic herbs in a

> deficient patient.

>

 

 

Paul

 

Thanks for your always thoughtful and all too rarely heard words. I guess I am

behind the research on arachadonic acid. However, my point was really to the

issue you mention above, the presence of EFA's and the ratio of AA to the

omegas. for the record, I have NEVER been a vegetarian advocate. I eat animal

products daily as I have always done and I recommend my patients do

likewise. I agree with what you said about tonics and protein, etc., etc.

However, I have often wondered whether those short and medium term gains

are eventually offset by the tendency for a high grain fed meat diet to be at

least slightly pro-inflammatory. In other words, while meat eaters definitely

do better than vegetarians who eat a lot of refined carbs (as the majority of

vegetarians do, in my expereince), would the incidence of heart disease and

cancer and autoimmunity take drmatic drop if grain was eliminated as a feed

altogether. I suspect the answer is yes.

 

So I will provisionally back down and say that Tim may be right here. We

could be talking about good and better, not good and bad (but I think this

really

comes down to semantics). But don't such studies inherently compare those

who eat a high refined carb diet verus those who eat more protein. I have no

doubt that all things being equal, rfined carbs are worse than grain fed meat.

So statistically, meat eaters do better than vegetarians. But we really don't

have an decent study of those who eat a whole grain diet with only fish or

pasture fed beef to draw a true comparison between healthy diets becasue so

few people eat such a diet. Thus I think we do end up comparing bad and

better. But the levelof health that comes from even the lesser of those two

evils is still quite subpar, IMO. People should live to be 100, disease free.

I

think the research just proves that meat eaters do better than sugar eaters. I

don't think it proves grain fed meat is healthy as I define health (thus we are

back to semantics). Also, I have often worked with a subset of the population

that benfits immensely from the fatty acid issue, those with autoimmune

diseases. In those patients, I find the pro-inflammatory nature of the fatty

acid content of grain fed meat to make a really big difference in results. Any

thoughts on this population vis a vis this issue.

 

The upshot is that on the continuum of nutrition, eating meat is better than

not eating meat. It beats the hell out of refined carbs, which are pure garbage

(any rebuttal there?). But can I call it healthy? Back to semantics.

Ultimately, healthy still means to me, that which promotes wholeness and

healing, of the patient and society. I do not believe the consumption of

commercial and grain fed organic cows contribute to either of these goals.

Commercial farming is very disruptive to the environment and a major source

of poisoning of water and air. But even organic grain fed beef, while still

better than commercial beef or a high carb diet, is still low in EFA's. I can't

really call such a subpar diet " healthy " just because it is LESS disease

producing and has short and medium term benefits. I can only use that word

for an optimum diet. However, it was misleading of me to use it that way w/o

clarification as I can see it made me appear to be some sort of vegetarian

zealot. and it would be very problematic if it drove patients back to a refined

carb diet. that was certainly not my intent.

 

Finally, I have personally observed on myself and in practice, that the

consumption of high quality supplemental EFA's seems to mitigate the pro-

inflammatory nature of moderate meat intake in those who are sensitive, such

as my autoimmune patients. So there are solutions other than diet. But

practically, I have seen immense health gians when taking the next step and

switching from grain fed to grass fed beef.

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

would the incidence of heart disease and

> cancer and autoimmunity take dramatic drop if grain was eliminated as a

feed

> altogether. I suspect the answer is yes.

 

After I reread this, I realized there is another way to assess this. Perhaps it

is not that meat is " unhealthy " by being deficient in EFA's, but that it lacks

some of the key protective effects of foods that are high in EFA's. So we are

back to good and better again. It may be likened to the issue of commercial

versus organic veggies. Evidence overwhelmingly supports the consumption of

commerical veggies as protective of cancer and heart disease, despite any

pesticide residues. On the other hand, while these veggies are still " good " ,

they generally lack certain minerals like selenium that could confer even

more cancer protection. So some protection is lost. I do feel obligated to

prod my patients towards optimal diet because while the average person may

be able to flex in this area, many of my patients are far more sensitive. So

grain fed meat may be fine for the young and healthy, but the young, old and

infirm should eat pasture fed, just to be sure.

 

[Guest guest]

In other words, while meat eaters definitely

do better than vegetarians who eat a lot of refined carbs (as the majority of

vegetarians do, in my expereince), would the incidence of heart disease and

cancer and autoimmunity take drmatic drop if grain was eliminated as a feed

altogether. I suspect the answer is yes.

>>>>What are the statistics in Argentina i wander. They eat lots of meat and

have mostly grazed animals i believe

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hmm, India as a culture doesn't seem to be any stronger or weaker than

any other culture, and they are largely vegetarian (even though they

consume dairy products).

 

Japan had a largely meat-free diet for centuries, and got its protein

from seafood sources (unless you consider fish to be meat).

 

One has to be careful with dietary conclusions, as there is lots of

conflicting data available.

 

 

On Mar 3, 2004, at 8:43 AM, Paul Bergner wrote:

 

> I find meat to be the indespensable tonic for my patients, a

> fundamental

> tonic food in the diet of the human species over history, and

> including it

> in the diet will often rapidly remove the need for tonic herbs in a

> deficient patient.

>

> Respectfully,

> Paul Bergner

[Guest guest]

I've often wondered about the effect of meat on consciousness.

Ayurveda classifies as it as very tamasic. Tamas is the stuff of

misery, greed and sloth in psychological terms. Tamas is also

inertia and baseness in Ayurveda. Sometimes when I eat meat, I can

feel a little disturbed, while simultaneously feeling nourished.

In ayurveda, meat is considered a medicine for the weak and

emaciated. Extreme wasting was often treated with meat juices of

carnivorous animals, like crows. They were considered to be

potentiated...meat upon meat. It was reserved as a medicine, similar

to how meat was consumed in Early China. Zhu Dan Xi mentions how men

didn't eat meat until 60 years of age??

 

In the western literary classic " The Anatomy of Melancholy, " the

author goes at length to express the power of all kinds of meat to

foster despair in men. There is a whole chapter dedicated to the

subject.

I wonder if in cases of emotional depression in which Qi and

blood/yin vacuity are not that vacuous and there are signs of heat,

meat often enough makes things worse.

Plus..they are all classified differently; right. From my

understanding chicken is warming and acts a Qi tonic as well as blood

tonic, but beef is a very rich and warming blood/yin tonic and not so

easy to digest. Pork is cooling and so is duck. Shrimp goes to the

right kidney and squid to the left. and so on...

just some thoughts,

matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Hmm, India as a culture doesn't seem to be any stronger or weaker

than

> any other culture, and they are largely vegetarian (even though

they

> consume dairy products).

>

> Japan had a largely meat-free diet for centuries, and got its

protein

> from seafood sources (unless you consider fish to be meat).

>

> One has to be careful with dietary conclusions, as there is lots of

> conflicting data available.

>

>

> On Mar 3, 2004, at 8:43 AM, Paul Bergner wrote:

>

> > I find meat to be the indespensable tonic for my patients, a

> > fundamental

> > tonic food in the diet of the human species over history, and

> > including it

> > in the diet will often rapidly remove the need for tonic herbs in

a

> > deficient patient.

> >

> > Respectfully,

> > Paul Bergner

[Guest guest]

, " facteau8 " <facteau8>

wrote:

 

> Plus..they are all classified differently; right. From my

> understanding chicken is warming and acts a Qi tonic as well as blood

> tonic, but beef is a very rich and warming blood/yin tonic and not so

> easy to digest. Pork is cooling and so is duck. Shrimp goes to the

> right kidney and squid to the left. and so on...

> just some thoughts,

> matt

 

Chinese dietary advice regarding chicken refers to black chicken, and

not the kind of chicken that we eat in the USA. Beef in China refers

to lean oxen, not fat chemical-laden USA cows. Pork in China is from

a much smaller, more lean pig than those in the USA. These kinds of

things must be taken into consideration when pondering the

classifications of the foods that we eat.

 

Brian C. Allen