Eat less red meat, says Government?!

It's common knowledge that people eat portions of meat that are entirely too large. It is recommended to eat 3-4 ounces of meat and twice that much of whole grains and veggies. The veggie and meat serving ratio you get when you eat a meal in a restaurant should be switched. The meat is supposed to be a side, if included at all, with the whole grains and veggies the main dish. Society has it backwards. And D*** Hunter, you are actually quite out of your element today as you attacked something that did not exist. It said to eat less red meat and you instantly started defending meat. There was no attack that meat eating retarded dietitians have not already agreed on, smaller portions of cholesterol is better for you than large portions of cholesterol.

vegan

Deerhunter, the Mayo Clinic doesn't 'say the opposite', it reports a piece of research which casts doubt on some claims about red meat - though not the fact that a diet high in red meat is a risk factor for colorectal cancers, which is the basis for the UK government's recommendation.

The advice is good; there is very little evidence to link diet and cancer, but a diet high in red and processed meat is a proven risk factor for colorectal cancers. A pity that the government's advice doesn't appear to mention processed meats.

Government pays out billions a years in farm subsidies too.Bit of a contradiction there.

Processed meat contains; preservatives, fungicides, excessive salt, more preservatives, fillers (like sausages filled with bread) and loads of added water, (as much as 20%), the world's most expensive way to buy water, apart from out of a bottle.

The examples given are for processed food (sausages & bacon etc). Probably meat taken from a joint, and cooked, when eaten in moderation, would not be too bad for you as you can control adding things like salt.

That's good to hear, but you won't see the FDA advising people to limit or eliminate milk and other dairy seeing that them we subsidized milk and dairy farmers.

To Deer hunter, the article clearly says ''Red meat. About 100 grams (roughly the size of a deck of cards) a day was not associated with a higher risk for heart disease and only a slightly higher (but not statistically significant) risk for diabetes.''

This means NO MORE THAN ABOUT 100 g of red meat was NOT associated with a higher risk for heart disease

Deer Hunter, thank you for posting an article in which they concluded, "Should you run out and order a slab of beef? No. For one thing, the studies reviewed had a number of limitations. Additional randomized, controlled studies will be needed to confirm the findings. Keep in mind too that the serving sizes used were quite small — larger servings may have different effects. I plan to stick with my mostly plant-based diet and keep red meat as an occasional indulgence."

Here's another good one, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetar… "A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs."

Ii personally believe the health issue with red meat is from the following:
1- Processed red meat. Even the hunter's article pointed out, "About 50 grams (two-thirds the size of a deck of cards) a day was associated with a 42 percent higher risk for heart disease and a 19 percent higher risk for diabetes."
2- Well cooked meat.
3- Eating too much meat.
4- Hormones.and antibiotics. These animal hormones may be a contributing factor in breast cancer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

I agree that it's a good idea to eat less red meat, and any other kind of meat overall, even for people who will never become vegetarians.
***
DH, forum troll with nothing better to do than constantly criticize people for your own pleasure in this forum--- This article had nothing to do with vegetarianism-- It says they recommend eating less red meat.
But if you want to use the sources you cited: Mayo Clinic-- "A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs."
"Changing to a vegetarian diet probably won't cure your diabetes. But it may offer some benefits over a nonvegetarian diet — such as helping to better control your weight, reducing your risk of some diabetes-associated complications and possibly even making your body more responsive to insulin." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabete… "A low-fat vegetarian diet can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease — a common complication of people who have diabetes."
American Heart Association-- "Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. " http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.j…
American Dietetic Association-- "The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian
diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates." http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_po…

Thank you for verifying the credibility of these fine organizations.
Peace.

The Mayo clinic says the opposite.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-mea…

Correlations between the various diseases that vegetarians claim are caused by meat do not exist. It is EXCESSIVE consumption of meat that MAY increase risk factors but meat itself does not cause anything. The Mayo Clinic, The American Heart Association, The American dietetic Association, even the American Cancer society ALL include meat as part of their healthy food tips and shopping guides. Certainly these organizations are more credible than "vegan.org" or peta.org or "vegsoc.com".



So what was your question?

I don't need the government, any government (since I am neither British nor European) to tell me what I already know. Their recommendation is actually less than what I already eat now.

They forget they have made generation after generation to be absolutely gullible and not to think for themselves so they should have added that the people who gorge on nothing but meat to watch out!! No doubt this information will be taken too literal so it will start make people think that any red meat is bad!!

Instead of branding red meat, a staple diet for man since the dawn of time as a dangerous meat they should say that if people want to avoid certain disease they have to get their head screwed on and eat healthy and exercise. Red meat does not cause disease over eating and not having a varied diet causes disease!!

It sucks and its scare mongering!!

I liked the article on the BBC Website. The following information was:

1. Cooked breakfast. Assumes two standard sausages and two thin rashers of bacon
130g
Not within guidelines

2. Spaghetti bolognese. Standard portion of minced beef
140g
Not within guidelines

3. 5oz rump steak (A 5oz steak is smaller than a typical restuarant serving)
102g
Not within guidelines

4. Doner kebab, typically comprising several slices of processed marinated lamb
130g
Not within guidelines


5. Big Mac
70g
Within guideline!

It reads as an advert for McDonald's, doesn't it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12577…

I personally don't care what other people eat, to each his own. However, I find it interesting that anyone would just assume something is correct when it ends in .com, .co.uk or even .org as anyone can buy these websites. You need to cite anything on a website and the gatekeepers need to edit everything for factual information. If it doesn't have an author that is credible or authoritative, you might as well take it with a grain of salt. Anything in excess is not good, including vegetables and fruits. The pesticides alone on these products cause cancer in excess. Until the British government comes out with this statement don't jump to conclusions. And even then they apparently are just saying not to eat red meat in excess. No need to attack 'Deer Hunter' over it. He/she is clearly stating facts.