Jump to content
The Corroboree
tripsis

Chowing Down On Meat, Dairy Alters Gut Bacteria A Lot, And Quickly

Recommended Posts

Chowing Down On Meat, Dairy Alters Gut Bacteria A Lot, And Quickly

by Michaeleen Doucleff

December 11, 2013 1:34 PM

_mg_0101-58835d0be26aa0461f0fa99213bb1f0

To figure out how diet influences the microbiome, scientists put volunteers on two extreme diets: one that included only meat, egg and cheese and one that contained only grains, vegetables and legumes.

Morgan Walker/NPR

Looks like Harvard University scientists have given us another reason to walk past the cheese platter at holiday parties and reach for the carrot sticks instead: Your gut bacteria will thank you.

Switching to a diet packed with meat and cheese — and very few carbohydrates — alters the trillions of microbes living in the gut, scientists Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The change happens quickly. Within two days, the types of microbes thriving in the gut shuffle around. And there are signs that some of these shifts might not be so good for your gut: One type of bacterium that flourishes under the meat-rich diet has been linked to inflammation and intestinal diseases in mice.

"I mean, I love meat," says microbiologist , who contributed to the study and is now at Duke University.

"But I will say that I definitely feel a lot more guilty ordering a hamburger ... since doing this work," he says.

Scientists are just beginning to learn about how our decisions at the dinner table — or the drive-through — tweak our microbiome, that is, the communities of bacteria living in our bodies. But one thing is becoming clear: The critters hanging out in our intestine influence many aspects of our health, including weight, immunity and perhaps even .

And interest in studying the links between is growing. Previous research in this field had turned up tantalizing evidence that eating fiber can alter the composition of gut bacteria. But these studies had looked at diets over long periods of times — months and even years. David and his colleagues wanted to know whether fiber — or lack of it — could alter gut bacteria more rapidly.

To figure that out, the researchers got nine volunteers to go on two extreme diets for five days each.

The first diet was all about meat and cheese. "Breakfast was eggs and bacon," David says. "Lunch was ribs and briskets, and then for dinner, it was salami and prosciutto with an assortment of cheeses. The volunteers had pork rinds for snacks."

Then, after a break, the nine volunteers began a second, fiber-rich diet at the other end of the spectrum: It all came from plants. "Breakfast was granola cereal," David says. "For lunch, it was jasmine rice, cooked onions, tomatoes, squash, garlic, peas and lentils." Dinner looked similar, and the volunteers could snack on bananas and mangoes.

"The animal-based diet is admittedly a little extreme," he says. "But the plant-based diet is one you might find in a developing country."

David and the team analyzed the volunteers' microbiomes before, during and after each diet. And the effects of all that meat and cheese were immediately apparent.

"The relative abundance of various bacteria species looked like it shifted within a day after the food hit the gut," David says. After the volunteers had spent about three days on each diet, the bacteria in the gut even started to change their behavior. "The kind of genes turned on in the microbes changed in both diets," he says.

In particular, microbes that "love bile" — the Bilophila — started to dominate the volunteers' guts during the animal-based diet. Bile helps the stomach digest fats. So people make more bile when their diet is rich in meat and dairy fats.

A study last year that blooms of Bilophila cause inflammation and colitis in mice. "But we didn't measure levels of inflammation in our subjects," David says. "That's the next step."

Instead, he says, his team's data support the overall animal model that Bilophila promotes inflammation, which could ultimately be controlled by diet.

"Our study is a proof of concept that you can modify the microbiome through diet," David says. "But we're still a long ways off from being able to manipulate the community in any kind of way that an engineer would be pleased about."

Even just classifying Bilophila as "bad bacteria" is a tricky matter, says Dr. , a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.

"These bacteria are members of a community that have lived in harmony with us for thousands of years," says Kashyap, who wasn't involved in the study. "You can't just pick out one member of this whole team and say it's bad. Most bacteria in the gut are here for our benefit, but given the right environment, they can turn on us and cause disease."

Nevertheless, Kashyap thinks the Nature study is exciting because the findings unlock a potentially new avenue for treating intestinal diseases. "We want to look at diet as a way of treating patients," Kashyap says. "This study shows that short-term dietary interventions can change microbial composition and function."

Of course, figuring out exactly how to do that will take much more research.

"The paper has made the next leap in the field," Kashyap says. "With discovery comes responsibility. Once you make this big finding, it needs to be tested appropriately."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/12/10/250007042/chowing-down-on-meat-and-dairy-alters-gut-bacteria-a-lot-and-quickly'>Source.

Edit: seems there's a problem copying the links within the article from NPR. Best to read the article at the source.

Edited by tripsis
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funded by the US grain corp.

On one hand they are saying bacteria associated with meat can cause inflammation and then later on they tell us they didn't check for inflammation. It seems like a bit of slight of hand going on there. The average joe hasn't got the attention span read a full article so he'd be likely to just accept the opening statements as fact.

What they don't mention either is this study (like many anti meat studies) fed the meat eating stage of the study with processed or borderline rancid meats high in nitrates that are known to cause an imbalance in unhealthy bacteria populations in the gut and increase inflammatory markers. Lumping real meat in the same category as processed garbage is commonly employed tactic when "Scientists" funded by industry try to demonise meat.

Raw milk and fresh red meat have been shown in many studies to lower inflammitory markers. I believe this is a bit of propaganda to counter some of the recent low carb fads.

I'm not saying we should live on meat alone our bodies need balance - yin&yang.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats the problems with the "diets" they select, they are too extreme.

balance is the key. not extremes.

still a good read, really liking these articles tripsis!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should live on meat alone our bodies need balance - yin&yang.

Well actually our bodies don't need a balance of meat at all. In fact it's far more healthier to go without meat, it takes ages for the body to digest it and imo is a major factor in the obesity epidemic within our society. There's simply nothing in meat that you can't easily get from other sources (except omega 3 from oily fish, but most westerners don't eat fish regularly, so that's mostly irrelevant) and with all the hormones and stuff that go into producing meat, I very much doubt theirs anything good about it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article Tripsis.

I am currently reading the China study.

It studies the relationship between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancers of the breast, prostrate and bowel .The authors conclude that people who eat a whole plant diet—avoiding all animal products, including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce or reverse the development of numerous diseases. I am currently in the process of turning vegetarian ( I still occasionally eat fish ). A vegan diet is my aim but I think It is something I have to work my way into. I can't imagine life without eggs and cheese :o - well not just yet anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fungi and bacteria in cheese are pretty aggressive to other microbes full stop. (Penecillin type fungi). Together they join forces and beat up the other microbes.

A good cheese platter would contain at least 10 different strains of fungi alone (2 per cheese), so I think the results would be a little predictable.

Too much of anything isn't good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually our bodies don't need a balance of meat at all. In fact it's far more healthier to go without meat, it takes ages for the body to digest it and imo is a major factor in the obesity epidemic within our society. There's simply nothing in meat that you can't easily get from other sources (except omega 3 from oily fish, but most westerners don't eat fish regularly, so that's mostly irrelevant) and with all the hormones and stuff that go into producing meat, I very much doubt theirs anything good about it.

I really didn't want to turn this thread into a debate, I was just analysing it objectively.

Your opinion that meat causes obesity doesn't really hold up, if you put people on an all meat diet that is high in fat they will lose weight almost every time. Today people eat meat mixed with refined carbs and carbs fried in toxic vegetable oils which makes them likely to gain weight.

& Cacti Jihadist are you reading the actual China study and if so which one ? There's been two China studies that I'm aware of.

Most people who quote the China study have or are reading the book by Dr Cambell titled "The China Study" in his book Cambell has made many assumptions and outright mistakes based on the data interpered from the China study and uses that to "prove" that vegetarianism is healthier and that protein and meat are evil. Many of his statements have been thoroughly debunked by people that have actually taken the time to read through the data and crunch the numbers themselves with an objective unbiased perspective.

Cambell chery picked the data to suit his objective and completely ignored complicating factors in many instances.

If you are reading his book do yourself a favour and read some of the critique of his work.

& I have no issues with a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, if it's a balanced diet that supplies everything your body needs then that's fine just don't base all your opinions on one source.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion that meat causes obesity doesn't really hold up, if you put people on an all meat diet that is high in fat they will lose weight almost every time. Today people eat meat mixed with refined carbs and carbs fried in toxic vegetable oils which makes them likely to gain weight.

Put people on any kind of diet and they’ll lose weight every time, if by diet you mean eating fewer calories than you are expending.

There’s a lot of outright BS propaganda with the no carb diets you’re talking about (which obviously doesn’t have to be done with just meat). Firstly it is essentially just like any other diet, you will only achieve real fat lose (rather than just losing some water retention, which is only temporary) if you are eating less calories than you are expending, anyone who claims you will lose weight in the long term by eating as much calories as you want just by not consuming carbs is full of shit!

Also you seem to have associated not eating meat with not consuming protein and fat, which is a total misconception, there are many other sources of food, which contain protein and fat.

Anyway, I have personally come to the conclusion that meat is a major contributor to putting on excess fat, mostly because weight started becoming a huge issue for me once I hit 25, but since I stopped eating meat it just hasn’t been an issue. As a meat eater I used to have to try and control food intake to get rid of flabs of fat I was carrying. Now though, as a non-meat eater I only have to control my food intake so I can get my abs showing.

My theory is it’s because there’s only so much energy your body can use at any one time and non-meat food is digested within an hour or 2, where as meat is still digesting up to 8 hours later. So for example, if you stuffed yourself with 2 greasy vegetarian pizzas in one setting, your body simply wouldn’t be able to turn it all into energy in the few hours it takes to be digested and most of it would just go straight though ya as waste product. Where as if you stuffed yourself with 2 meat lovers pizzas, your body has over 8 hours to turn all those calories into energy and then obviously into fat unless your planing a marathon.

Edited by Subaeruginosin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4years ago I ate meat daily, lots of cheese and milk by the litre! I was also 165kgs!

Now I eat cheese once a week, milk once a week And no meat at all. I now weigh 75kgs.

I did no excersise at all just changed to a diet of lots of fresh nuts. It's interesting reading this report and thinking about what I went through... I can see some truth in it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I can get my abs showing.

Id love to see these abs :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really didn't want to turn this thread into a debate, I was just analysing it objectively.

Your opinion that meat causes obesity doesn't really hold up, if you put people on an all meat diet that is high in fat they will lose weight almost every time. Today people eat meat mixed with refined carbs and carbs fried in toxic vegetable oils which makes them likely to gain weight.

& Cacti Jihadist are you reading the actual China study and if so which one ? There's been two China studies that I'm aware of.

Most people who quote the China study have or are reading the book by Dr Cambell titled "The China Study" in his book Cambell has made many assumptions and outright mistakes based on the data interpered from the China study and uses that to "prove" that vegetarianism is healthier and that protein and meat are evil. Many of his statements have been thoroughly debunked by people that have actually taken the time to read through the data and crunch the numbers themselves with an objective unbiased perspective.

Cambell chery picked the data to suit his objective and completely ignored complicating factors in many instances.

If you are reading his book do yourself a favour and read some of the critique of his work.

& I have no issues with a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, if it's a balanced diet that supplies everything your body needs then that's fine just don't base all your opinions on one source.

That is the book I have almost finished Sally. I am looking now into the debunking of his "science" and you make a valid point from what I can see. It was not this alone that want to make me turn to a vegetarian diet. Watching Samsara with dilated pupils was the clincher for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it takes a decade to get to 165kg. and im super happy to see you've changed your life prioritise. well done, thats not easy.

but your still in early stages. everyone learns every day, and some out there have different challenges, diet and fitness not one of them.

its the same reason i can't take anyone under 25 serious, they simply havent the experience yet to properly know whats up.

the fact is, if your eating the right food, excess calories get burned off as heat from the body, it just ramps up and burns it. only when the system is compromised, or people overthink shit and manipulate the system, then it backfires and you'll store weight instead of burning.

a prime example is that i have a resting hr of about 80bpm, now i routinely monitor peoples vitals and have done for nearly 14yrs, so i got a pretty god damn good idea of true life measurements. well how come the obese 65yr old has a lower resting hr than me? BECAUSE THEY NOT BURNING CALORIES like me.

ive seen old immobile people with 60bpm, i see 47 all the time! not in the 18yr olds that are fit, but in the 55yr old sedentary people. one even had 37bpm (obvious heart problems, but showing my point, thats not a sign of fit)

sorry for off topic but thought it relavent for those reading. so sick and tired of reading stupid papers when the answer is so easy.

Edited by C_T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting study. I'm more and more interested in learning about the microbiome - it's so intriguing and so underexplored. I don't have much appetite (har har har) for the endless carb/meat/grain/protein wars that are waged incessantly on the internet, but I'll be celebrating four years of being a vegan in a few weeks. I lost a -great deal- of weight, I used to weigh about 140kg and now I'm down to 80. What's more, the weight has stayed off.

I like Subs idea that vegetarian meals (although there's a lot of variance within that) aren't digested long enough to unlock all their energy. Cacti Jihadist (love your name, lol) being a vegan is a tremendously rewarding experience and you should definitely work towards it. I haven't had eggs and cheese for nearly four years and I don't miss it. Peoples tastes change and they fall out of old habits. Almost every vegan I know has had their tastes and cravings alter once they became a vegan - I suppose the body recognizes its altered diet and adjusts itself to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also you seem to have associated not eating meat with not consuming protein and fat, which is a total misconception, there are many other sources of food, which contain protein and fat.

Point me to where I stated anything that even hints at that. I stated vegetarian and vegan diets are fine if they are balanced.

-------------

& C_T do you see many athletes at work ?

When I was a pro cyclist (over 20 years ago now) I had a max heart rate of 240 + and my resting heart rate was bradycardic, sometimes it would drop down to 36 bpm at rest. I knew if had overdone the training the day before because my heart rate upon waking the next day would be 50 +. (I used a holter monitor several times for 24 hour stints and they had to re-do the tests twice and get the devices calibrated because the quacks didn't believe the results)

It's a totally different scenario than what you're talking with obese out of shape people, I was eating 4000 + calories a day and I was very lean, so my metabolism was cranking. I'm just curious as to what extremes you've witnessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it takes a decade to get to 165kg. and im super happy to see you've changed your life prioritise. well done, thats not easy.

its the same reason i can't take anyone under 25 serious, they simply havent the experience yet to properly know whats up.

Took 18mths actually, 7 kilos a mth is approx what I put on.

Funny you say that, when I was 24 I never considered speaking to anybody over 25 as I though I couldn't take them serious with their "your just young" rubbish.... ;-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see all walks of life, jet fighter pilots, athletes, non-athletes everyone and anywhere between, some of the best, some of the worst. prob see 300 people a year... for 12hrs at a time so its not a short crappy window, its a very well observed study. with serious equipment monitoring it all.

and of course it try it all myself.

prob low bf% causing your body to freak out and slow down. as my best guess. could be due to strain, cyclists and heart attacks are very common, same with marathon runners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably was related to the bf% and I certainly did overdo things at that time. The quack was a bit concerned about it at first so he measured my oxygen sats and blood gases etc at rest with that low heart rate and everything was fine.

He did some research and next time he saw me he said it was common syndrome for endurance athletes, as the heart becomes more efficient it can pump more blood at low heart rates, so he reckoned it was no cause for concern.

Sorry to sidetrack your thread Tripsis, I'll but out now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funded by the US grain corp.

You're honestly going to make that claim, with no evidence whatsoever? Wow. I just lost a fair bit of respect for you Sally.

On one hand they are saying bacteria associated with meat can cause inflammation and then later on they tell us they didn't check for inflammation. It seems like a bit of slight of hand going on there. The average joe hasn't got the attention span read a full article so he'd be likely to just accept the opening statements as fact.

So because "Average Joe" is too lazy to read a short article fully, you're going to attack the authors of the study/article? Perhaps you've never done science Sally, but your example doesn't imply sleight of hand, it reveals how scientists try to understand their results. In this case, eating meat led to an increase of Bilophila bacteria. Those same bacteria have been shown to cause inflammation in a previous study. So the authors have inferred that eating meat may lead to inflammation, yet were clear that they did not measure it in this study specifically and plan on doing so. No sleight of hand there, it's all very clear.

Lumping real meat in the same category as processed garbage is commonly employed tactic when "Scientists" funded by industry try to demonise meat.

Evidence please, or you're simply peddling your own propaganda.

Well actually our bodies don't need a balance of meat at all. In fact it's far more healthier to go without meat, it takes ages for the body to digest it and imo is a major factor in the obesity epidemic within our society. There's simply nothing in meat that you can't easily get from other sources (except omega 3 from oily fish, but most westerners don't eat fish regularly, so that's mostly irrelevant) and with all the hormones and stuff that go into producing meat, I very much doubt theirs anything good about it.

Meat does not take that long to digest. Everything about our evolution and anatomy suggests we evolved as omnivores. Nothing about our evolution and anatomy suggests we are supposed to be herbivores. If you wish to subsist purely off plants, that's fine and kudos to you, it is undoubtedly a more environmental way to exist, but don't go peddling bullshit regurgitated by a bunch of ill-informed vegetarians with an agenda.

A vegan diet is my aim but I think It is something I have to work my way into. I can't imagine life without eggs and cheese :o - well not just yet anyway.

I've been vegan twice. No matter how much I tried to eat a healthy and balanced diet, I always became deficient in both iron and B12. I was also way too skinny. Not the diet for me. If it works fr you though, go for it!

My theory is it’s because there’s only so much energy your body can use at any one time and non-meat food is digested within an hour or 2, where as meat is still digesting up to 8 hours later. So for example, if you stuffed yourself with 2 greasy vegetarian pizzas in one setting, your body simply wouldn’t be able to turn it all into energy in the few hours it takes to be digested and most of it would just go straight though ya as waste product. Where as if you stuffed yourself with 2 meat lovers pizzas, your body has over 8 hours to turn all those calories into energy and then obviously into fat unless your planing a marathon.

You really need to read more, before you go basing opinions on your own flawed logic. It doesn't work like that. Do you even understand what the word "digest" means? Using your example, if non-meat food is digested in an hour or two and you eat two greasy vegetarian pizzas, then that means in a hour or two, you've broken that food down into a state that allows it to be absorbed into the blood stream, where it is either immediately used as energy, burned off in thermogenesis or converted to fat for later use. If you ate two greasy meat pizzas, that took up to eight hours to digest, then the energy and nutrients from them is going to enter your bloodstream slower. That's the only difference. This is why high protein meals leads to longer feelings of satiety than meals with little protein.

the fact is, if your eating the right food, excess calories get burned off as heat from the body, it just ramps up and burns it. only when the system is compromised, or people overthink shit and manipulate the system, then it backfires and you'll store weight instead of burning.

Different macronutrients have different capacities for how much can be burnt off in thermogenesis, i.e. more protein is burnt of in thermogenesis than carbohydrates, and more carbohydrates are burnt off in thermogenesis than fat.

Individual metabolism is also a big factor. Some individuals have slow metabolisms and even a slight increase of calorific intake above their daily needs will result in fat production. Others have incredibly high metabolisms and regardless of how much they eat and what they eat, really struggle to gain weight.

Edited by tripsis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Tripsis, I was just reading the article objectively and the opening line was a bit of sarcasm.

They are suggesting that eating meat has been linked to inflammation but then say they didn't test for it. That's not stating something as an established scientific fact that's called making a hypothesis. When they get some real proof then I'll evaluate it on its merits.

If you increase the bile load with extra meat of course you are going to see an increase in the count of bilophila as there is more food for them. The fact that it causes inflammation in animal studies based on an animal that is predominantly vegetarian doesn't automatically equate to increased inflammation in humans that have been omnivores for millenia.

That study included meat sources including processed meat, these meats are proven to cause higher levels of inflammitory markers in the bloodstream and heart disease, arthritis and cancer. The article made no discernment between real unprocessed meat and factory rubbish. So the title of the article is somewhat misleading given the content and the context of the article.

While this is not the proof you are after here's a quote from Dr C Couillard from the WHO

http://www.newsroompanama.com/health/news/6001-health-watch-hazards-of-processed-meats-.html

It’s important to note that most studies fail to effectively distinguish between processed meat and unprocessed, as well as overcooked or charred meats. A “red-meat-is-bad” approach is a major mistake as not all red meats are bad for you.
However, processed meats such as sausages, deli meats, etc. contain high amounts of omega-6 fatty acids, mold called mycotoxins, nitrates and a variety of preservatives. All of these compounds can be correlated to an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
One common problem historically with nutritional questionnaires is that they are not highly specific in regard to the type and quality of meats. The good news, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health conducted a systematic review to distinguish between the types of meat. They defined unprocessed red meat as any meat from beef, pork or lamb that hasn’t been smoked, cured, salted or have any chemical preservatives.
The outcome of this review confirmed processed meats caused a 19 per cent higher risk of Type 2 diabetes. The researchers did not find a higher risk among individuals eating unprocessed healthy red meats, such as beef, pork or lamb.
Heart disease, cancer and diabetes are chronic diseases that are affected by the amount of inflammation in one’s body. One’s diet is an important determining factor through the ratio of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3s are anti-inflammatory while omega-6 fatty acids are pro-inflammatory.
This is the mechanism by which processed meats produce inflammation and disease in the body. The ideal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is between 2:1 and 4:1 according to health experts across medical specialties. Processed and fried foods have been found to produce ratios between 20:1 and 50:1.
All meat contains some omega-6s but processed, preserved, cured and overcooked meats contain higher levels of oxidized toxins and these toxins have been found to be readily absorbed into bodily tissues and cause inflammation.

And that's not even considering compounds such as Heterocyclic amines, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or phosphates, nitrates, texturizers, stabilizers, thickeners and monosodium glutamate.

The dairy products they mentioned have been heat treated, which is known to denature the proteins and cause inflammation.

If the study was to have any relevance to the real world they should be comparing multiple groups of people eating the different types of food, one group eating meat, one group eating dairy and other groups eating grains and vegetables and measuring them for known inflammitory markers in the bloodstream. To lump groups of people eating multiple types of possible inflammatory foods ie milk & meat (where the meat is not real meat) into the same group and make ambiguous statements about the possibility of inflammation is not science, it's just a very uncontrolled series of experiments and a hypothesis.

Show me some real double blind studies on people eating only real meat and raw milk and compare them to a control group eating grains.

Edited by Sally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Tripsis, I was just reading the article objectively and the opening line was a bit of sarcasm.

If that were the case, the sarcasm was lost in text, as it almost always is. I really don't know why people persist in attempts to be sarcastic while lacking an ability to convey tone. It just doesn't work. Yet you go on to say you think it's propaganda and imply the scientists have been funded by an organisation with ulterior motives. How is that sarcasm?

They are suggesting that eating meat has been linked to inflammation but then say they didn't test for it. That's not stating something as an established scientific fact that's called making a hypothesis. When they get some real proof then I'll evaluate it on its merits.

Correct. Often studies lead to further hypotheses. They never stated it as fact, they implied a possible connection and stated that further research was to be performed.

If you increase the bile load with extra meat of course you are going to see an increase in the count of bilophila as there is more food for them. The fact that it causes inflammation in animal studies based on an animal that is predominantly vegetarian doesn't automatically equate to increased inflammation in humans that have been omnivores for millenia.

Hence why they are going to continue research, as stated.

That study included meat sources including processed meat, these meats are proven to cause higher levels of inflammitory markers in the bloodstream and heart disease, arthritis and cancer. The article made no discernment between real unprocessed meat and factory rubbish.

That's a reasonable point. I'm not saying the study is without its flaws. Personally, the first thing that sprang to mind was the connection between fat and Bilophila. The authors made the connection between meat and increased bile due to fat, but not all meat is fatty. On the other hand, plenty of high fat vegetable sources exist, most notably many nuts and seeds. To me, it would have made more sense to have have a diet of lean meat, a diet of fatty meat, a lean plant diet and a plant diet high in fat. While I agree that it's not a great piece of research, that doesn't automatically mean it's a mouthpiece for some anti-meat agenda.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate I wasn't trying to dump on your thread, I enjoy reading your posts.

I was just in a sarcastic mood today :bootyshake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to apologise, I post these articles to incite discussion, so it's good to see that this one has generated so much interest. You can tear apart the study if you like, but I'll pick apart those posts I think lack logic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meat does not take that long to digest.

Do you have a reliable source to back that up? Because every source from a google search says it does and some claim meat takes even far longer.

Everything about our evolution and anatomy suggests we evolved as omnivores. Nothing about our evolution and anatomy suggests we are supposed to be herbivores.

Yeah the human gut is one tough organ and can digest almost anything into usable energy, it’s probably one of the things that made us the most successful species. But apart from that are you trying to make some kind of other point? Humans evolved to be capable of many different things to help us survive in the wild that are not in any way healthy and will lead to ill health and injuries in later life.

You really need to read more, before you go basing opinions on your own flawed logic. It doesn't work like that. Do you even understand what the word "digest" means? Using your example, if non-meat food is digested in an hour or two and you eat two greasy vegetarian pizzas, then that means in a hour or two, you've broken that food down into a state that allows it to be absorbed into the blood stream, where it is either immediately used as energy, burned off in thermogenesis or converted to fat for later use. If you ate two greasy meat pizzas, that took up to eight hours to digest, then the energy and nutrients from them is going to enter your bloodstream slower. That's the only difference. This is why high protein meals leads to longer feelings of satiety than meals with little protein.

Yes mate that was kind of my whole point. Maybe you just need to slowly read what you yourself wrote, then consider the fact that there is only so much energy your body can absorb at any one time. Is it starting to make sense now?

Edited by Subaeruginosin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a reliable source to back that up? Because every source from a google search says it does and some claim meat takes even far longer.

Considering that my response was in response to you claiming it takes "ages", that will be hard, as ages is rather ambiguous. If you're claiming 8 hours, I won't argue, but that doesn't strike me as "ages".

Yeah the human gut is one tough organ and can digest almost anything into usable energy, it’s probably one of the things that made us the most successful species. But apart from that are you trying to make some kind of other point? Humans evolved to be capable of many different things to help us survive in the wild that are not in any way healthy and will lead to ill health and injuries in later life.

Such as?

My point is that we are adapted to eat meat. There are cultures that subsist entirely off meat. If it were that harmful, they would be extinct.

Yes mate that was kind of my whole point. Maybe you just need to slowly read what you yourself wrote, then consider the fact that there is only so much energy your body can absorb at any one time. Is it starting to make sense now?

And you, mate, need to educate yourself a little more. If food is digested, that energy will enter the bloodstream. If there if more energy than the body immediately requires, it will be converted to fat. Do you understand? Your body doesn't just digest an arbitrary amount and then shit out the other half of the pizza it doesn't need, because it's decided that's enough energy in one sitting.

Edited by tripsis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that my response was in response to you claiming it takes "ages", that will be hard, as ages is rather ambiguous. If you're claiming 8 hours, I won't argue, but that doesn't strike me as "ages".

Well, the actual period food takes to digest is kind of irrelevant, since it’s obviously going to be different for everybody due to many different factors, but my point was that meat usually takes a lot longer to digest than non-meat products.

My point is that we are adapted to eat meat. There are cultures that subsist entirely off meat. If it were that harmful, they would be extinct.

They have adapted to it over many generations, if most of us tried to do it we would make ourselves sick from a nutritional deficiency and probably would end up dying from severe constipation. Besides, I’m sure they survive just fine, but at the same time I don’t think the Inuits are famous for living amazingly healthy and long lived lives. Just because something might not kill ya doesn't automatically make it healthy.

And you, mate, need to educate yourself a little more. If food is digested, that energy will enter the bloodstream. If there if more energy than the body immediately requires, it will be converted to fat. Do you understand? Your body doesn't just digest an arbitrary amount and then shit out the other half of the pizza it doesn't need, because it's decided that's enough energy in one sitting.

I disagree, the body is amazingly efficient at turning food into usable energy, but even the human body has it's limits. I personally believe (and have read) there’s only so much it can convert at any one time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×