• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Fat's bad?? (must read for MRJ, Jason)

RobertMac

Well-known member
Long, but everyone should read this interview...especially if you have a weight problem. It's eye opening....or should be!!!!!



The underlying philosophy is this kind of Paleolithic diet theory. It's what we ate during the 2 million years that we were hunter-gatherers on this planet. The fact that we were hunter-gatherers for 2 million years suggests it was an extraordinarily successful evolutionary adaptation. The question is: What did we eat during these 2 million [years] when we left the jungle, the trees, went down into savanna and started surviving on whatever we could hunt or gather? That's the philosophy. The answer is, probably considerable meat, very low glycemic index, hard-to-digest roots and starches, and fruits and berries that look nothing at all like the beautiful Fuji applies you can buy at your local market now. Some carbohydrates, but whatever it was, it wasn't refined. It wasn't sugar. It wasn't flour. It wasn't easy to digest. That's my going theory. If this theory's right, the diet we evolved to eat is probably the correct diet.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/interviews/taubes.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
RB, I printed out several copies and am giving it to all my "health" conscious friends.

Thanks for the info!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
THIS is what the checkoff needs to get behind. Throw some of that money into research to see of this guy is right. It needs to happen NOW. Wall St. is very consious of the baby-boomer effect - that 1/3 of our population born from 1946 - 1966. They've moved markets as they've progressed thru the various life stages. Now they're getting older and they're being told that they have to cut back on read meat. Translated - a hell of a lot of people are being told to cut back on beef. If you're a group concerned with beef demand - here's a big one...
 

graybull

Well-known member
Thanks again, Robert...........good info. I remember well, Taubes article "Big Fat Lie".....(think I still have it stored on disk somewhere if anyone wants to read it) not only how well written and researched it was......but also what a reaction it created. Of course the mis-informed and misguided low fat profiteers strongly condemned his work.

Too darn bad that the beef industry (NCBA/Checkoff) has never done enough research to realize that nature is in charge of what foods contribute to positive and negative human health......instead they prefer to listen and pander to the crowd with a vested interest in downgrading the true health benefits of beef (AMA, ADA, AHA, etc)......with the cry of "sound science".

Great to have people recognize what is "sound science" and what is BS based on financial interests. Keep up the great work, Robert......you are doing more positive work than the entire group of beef checkoff people.
 

hillsdown

Well-known member
Some carbohydrates, but whatever it was, it wasn't refined. It wasn't sugar. It wasn't flour.

Carbohydrates are the number one reason for obesity and diabetes. Cut your carbs especially all the modified flours and sugars and you will not only lose weight but increase your energy.

I have a few diabetic friends that were in some serious trouble to threatening loss of limbs.Two cut carbs right down to less than 20mg per day and now lead very healthy normal active lives. One even got his class 1 license back.The other one is still in denial and eats discusting fast food crap all the time.I imagine we will be going to a funeral soon.

....A well balanced diet includes red meat;not greasy Raunchy Ronnie burgers which are mostly filler and hardly and real beef.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
It amazes me how little attention this topic gets here when it is at the root of all our problems. Every cattle producer should buy and read this book...right after they buy and read Ben's book!! :mad:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ONZXAwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Gary+inauthor:Taubes


RobertMac, thanks for the plug for my book, some of the readers on this board have ask for a copy. The readers that don't reply are the ones that want to learn the truth about our industry and how we ever got ourselves into the conditions that exist today.

Some of the readers that do reply, don't want to make the changes, it's to easy to blame our problems on someone else. Like now, with the latest E-coli outbreak, it really is not a packer problem. Brad S is the closest to answering where the real problem exist. Chapter 13 in my book is about factory feedlots, who is going to clean up this mess, they have created.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
In 1986, the FDA exonerated sugar of any nutritional crimes on the basis that "no conclusive evidense demonstrates a hazard."....

The identical message was passed along in the 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health and the 1989 National Academy of Science's Diet and Health report. Here, too, the inconclusive studies and ambiguous evidense were considered insufficient to indict sugar as a dietary evil--innocent until proven guilty. These two reports also reviewed the dietary fat/heart-disease connection, which also constituted a collection of inconclusive studies and ambiguous evidence. Here, though, dietary fat was assumed guilty until proved innocent. And so the existence of ambiguous evidence was considered sufficient reason to condemn fat in the diet, particularly saturated fat, while the existence of ambiguous evidence was simultaneously considered reason enough to exonerate sugar.
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, I sure don't know why you assume that I have any bias against beef or animal fats! I've certainly never stated that.

I'm not so sure your assumption about loss of market share for beef is anywhere near accurate, either. For sure, there is more than one factor (you claim dietary fears) in any such loss.

One problem is that consumption of beef numbers used to include the total pounds of hanging weight, far more 'product' than was actually the consumable meat, with no accounting for discarded fat and bones present on both the rail and the plate. It probably gave health professionals indigestion to see the high number!

When (influenced by Checkoff interests, I'm certain) the actual meat consumed was tallied and the number was well below the most conservative recommendations, at about 2 ounces per person per day, it might have appeared that there was more of a decline in consumption than really occured. Using a bit of logic here, and open to correction if verification of factual counter point can be provided.

NCBA and CBB continues to recommend the five to seven ounces per day of beef as currently recommended by health professionals as part of a blanced diet. That may be what they are legally required to do, BTW.

I am very certain that research is studied and new research is encouraged, however money is very tight, given inflation, and decreased cattle numbers due in no small part to heavier individual cattle weights resulting in fewer checkoff dollars coming in.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
RobertMac, I sure don't know why you assume that I have any bias against beef or animal fats! I've certainly never stated that.

I'm not so sure your assumption about loss of market share for beef is anywhere near accurate, either. For sure, there is more than one factor (you claim dietary fears) in any such loss.

One problem is that consumption of beef numbers used to include the total pounds of hanging weight, far more 'product' than was actually the consumable meat, with no accounting for discarded fat and bones present on both the rail and the plate. It probably gave health professionals indigestion to see the high number!

When (influenced by Checkoff interests, I'm certain) the actual meat consumed was tallied and the number was well below the most conservative recommendations, at about 2 ounces per person per day, it might have appeared that there was more of a decline in consumption than really occured. Using a bit of logic here, and open to correction if verification of factual counter point can be provided.

NCBA and CBB continues to recommend the five to seven ounces per day of beef as currently recommended by health professionals as part of a blanced diet. That may be what they are legally required to do, BTW.

I am very certain that research is studied and new research is encouraged, however money is very tight, given inflation, and decreased cattle numbers due in no small part to heavier individual cattle weights resulting in fewer checkoff dollars coming in.

mrj

I look at ERS-USDA data...you obviously drink NCBA/CBB kool-aid!!!

Dietary fears are most important because BEEF IS FOOD!!!!!!!!!!
If consumers fear beef will kill them, it doesn't matter how cheap the price is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buy the book and educate yourself...there has been plenty of contradictory research to Ancel Key's saturated fat/high cholesterol hypothesis (that condemns beef) since the late 19th century. So why has NCBA/CBB not championed any of the research that supports beef as an essential, healthful food of the human diet??????????????????????

Get your head out of the NCBA sand and educate yourself...that goes for all beef producers...buy this book and read it! IMO, this is the most important diet book ever written!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, where have you seen ANYTHING from NCBA, CBB, or other Beef Checkoff contractors which stated beef is anything but a valuable part of a healthful diet?

Are you saying people should NOT eat a balanced diet, with foods chosen from a variety of sources?

If it were not for NCBA reassuring people about the science based protocols to provide safe beef during the BSE scare, we would have a REAL decline in beef consumption.

What kind of Kool-aid are YOU drinking to say that NCBA/CBB has not, or is not promoting beef as an essential healthful food for the human diet?

What is your source for that accusation?

They may not say people SHOULD eat all the beef and beef fat they can possibly hold, but they certainly do not promote beef as anything BUT beneficial to good health.

Sorry, you obviously have had your head in a Mississippi swamp and can't see the facts of this situation!

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj, there has been "a REAL decline in beef consumption" over the last thirty plus years...which includes the entire life of the check-off program. There has also been REAL decline in the USA beef production industry(the vast majority of the increase in beef products has come from increased imports). I'm sure the producers involved in NCBA/CBB promotions are well intentioned, but success is measured in results, not good intentions.

Over the last thirty years, saturated fats ( most all consumers read this as "BEEF") has been (wrongfully) blamed for our chronic health problems. Throughout this time, there have been scientist with research exonerating saturated fats and pointing toward refined carbs as the real cause of our chronic health problems. What they needed/need was/is someone to champion their research against the anti-meat crowd...yet you tell me that NCBA has to do their own research before they can take a position. The research is there to position beef as a solution to these health problems, not the cause. Until the perception of beef is changed, the beef industry will not grow...and that is the job of CBB and ALL beef organizations. Until these goals are met, they are all failures!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
RM, you are reaching way too far in your claims of what I have or have not said, for just one point.

I've NOT said NCBA has to do their own research before they can take a position.

I have said they study research and must comply with government rules concerning use of beef checkoff money to make ANY claims.

BTW, there are scientists, and there are self-proclaimed scientists. I'm not saying or implying that the scientists whose work you are promoting are not legitimate........but that Beef Checkoff leaders have to be more cautious than you do in claims they support. And yes, they may have passed up good opportunities.......but have also been saved from embarrassment or worse at times, too, by the caution used.

In so far as beef consumption is concerned, I will continue to put more hope in beef DEMAND than in everyone racing out and gorging on the fattest beef they can find.........which could be interpreted as what you are recommending......though I don't really believe you are going to quite that extreme.

What is the percentage of imported beef used in the USA as compared with domestically produced beef? What is the percentage exported of both domestically produced and previously imported beef?

Do you really believe it reasonable to think it would serve producers and want-to-be-cattle producers better if we were to go to some sort of peasant system where all cattle producers, processors, and retailers are "too big", or "too international" were eliminated and the existing businesses were broken up to "give more people a chance"?

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
mrj, there has been "a REAL decline in beef consumption" over the last thirty plus years...which includes the entire life of the check-off program. There has also been REAL decline in the USA beef production industry(the vast majority of the increase in beef products has come from increased imports). I'm sure the producers involved in NCBA/CBB promotions are well intentioned, but success is measured in results, not good intentions.

Over the last thirty years, saturated fats ( most all consumers read this as "BEEF") has been (wrongfully) blamed for our chronic health problems. Throughout this time, there have been scientist with research exonerating saturated fats and pointing toward refined carbs as the real cause of our chronic health problems. What they needed/need was/is someone to champion their research against the anti-meat crowd...yet you tell me that NCBA has to do their own research before they can take a position. The research is there to position beef as a solution to these health problems, not the cause. Until the perception of beef is changed, the beef industry will not grow...and that is the job of CBB and ALL beef organizations. Until these goals are met, they are all failures!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :agree:
 

Tex

Well-known member
The biggest packer, Tyson, has an interest in keeping beef's reputation in the place it is in. They make much more money on their poultry operations.

mrj can not see this conflict of interest or how it hurts the beef industry.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
I've NOT said NCBA has to do their own research before they can take a position.

I have said they study research and must comply with government rules concerning use of beef checkoff money to make ANY claims.

Wait a minute...CBB must comply with government rules, NOT NCBA...are you saying they are one-in-the-same????????????

mrj said:
BTW, there are scientists, and there are self-proclaimed scientists. I'm not saying or implying that the scientists whose work you are promoting are not legitimate........but that Beef Checkoff leaders have to be more cautious than you do in claims they support. And yes, they may have passed up good opportunities.......but have also been saved from embarrassment or worse at times, too, by the caution used.

Buy the book, Gary has the bibliography of all the research.

mrj said:
In so far as beef consumption is concerned, I will continue to put more hope in beef DEMAND than in everyone racing out and gorging on the fattest beef they can find.........which could be interpreted as what you are recommending......though I don't really believe you are going to quite that extreme.

Arguing the extreme in desperation??????
Everyone gorging on beef would certainly increase DEMAND!!!!!

mrj said:
What is the percentage of imported beef used in the USA as compared with domestically produced beef? What is the percentage exported of both domestically produced and previously imported beef?

ERS-USDA

mrj said:
Do you really believe it reasonable to think it would serve producers and want-to-be-cattle producers better if we were to go to some sort of peasant system where all cattle producers, processors, and retailers are "too big", or "too international" were eliminated and the existing businesses were broken up to "give more people a chance"?

Do you really believe it reasonable to think it would serve producers and want-to-be-cattle producers better if we were to have only global packers to market our beef?????
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, you aren't REALLY that dense, are you????

When NCBA (even the Federation of State Beef Councils division of the org.) is doing contract work for CBB, the law must be followed. Of course, they are not "one-in-the-same", as anyone wishing to check FACTS can easily determine!

Re. everyone gorging on beef...........are you ready to accept the blame for Joe Blow with an extreme dietary problem doing so and keeling over dead from something an ambulance chasing attorney attributes to overindulgence in beef?

Re. what is "reasonable" numbers of any particular size of beef packers or processors.......I've advocated various sizes, not eliminating any particular size or class..........as some of you seem to be doing. Where would the family rancher benefit if you self-proclaimed economic geniuses succeed in putting ALL "big packers" or "global businesses" out of business tomorrow????

I and organizations i'm a member of, have worked long, if not with great success to date, to allow inter-state shipment of beef processed in state inspected plants when the particular state has inspection programs comparable or superior to federal inspection. I think we finally are making some headway, in spite of some of the SMALL federally inspected plants fighting it, fearing that would unfairly compete with them.

NCBA and other organizations working to make the best of the Beef Checkoff have had some successes and some failures in convincing federal authorities, health professionals, and individuals that the anti-beef, anti-animal fat push was based on incomplete, or even mis-information and unfair competition from plant based oil interests.

That was far more due to huge finanical disadvantage of beef people than due to any lack of effort or desire to promote the benefits of beef to the human diet...........and people like those of you who insist it was for any other reason are way out of touch with the facts.

RobertMac, have you had ANY involvement with your state Beef Council? Have you made ANY effort to be involved in either learning what is being done with your beef checkoff, or in influencing what is done with it? Details, please.

BTW, Econ, you can whine till the cows come home about how Tyson, and/or others are 'out to get us' somehow, and it will have no effect on the cattle business. Try posting something positive, for a change!

mrj
 
Top