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

Robertmac....Diet Proteins

Mike

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2008

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Diets high in protein may be the best way to keep hunger in check, U.S. researchers said on Thursday in a study that offers insight into how diets work.

They found that protein does the best job at keeping a hunger hormone in check, while carbohydrates and fats may well deserve their current nasty reputation.

The study, which will appear in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, looked at the effectiveness of different nutrients at suppressing ghrelin, a hormone secreted by the stomach that stimulates appetite.

"Suppression of ghrelin is one of the ways that you lose your appetite as you begin to eat and become sated," said Dr. David Cummings of the University of Washington in Seattle, who worked on the study.

The researchers gave 16 people three different beverages, each with varying levels of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. They took blood samples before the first beverage, then every 20 minutes for six hours afterward, measuring ghrelin levels in each sample.

"The interesting findings were that fats suppress ghrelin quite poorly," Cummings said in a telephone interview. They fared the poorest overall.

"Proteins were the best suppressor of ghrelin in terms of the combination of the depth and duration of suppression," he said. "That is truly satisfying because high proteins are essentially common to almost all of the popular diets."

They also found that eating carbohydrates resulted in a strong ghrelin suppression at first, but ghrelin levels rebounded with a vengeance, rising to an even higher level. Continued...

Rest of the story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1726777420080118


Basically, the carbohydrates eventually made people even hungrier than before they had eaten.


Where's the NCBA with this info?????????????????????????
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Insulin, by far, is the most important hormone at work concerning diet. Carbohydrates cause the pancreas to work overtime producing insulin to regulate the blood sugar spike from eating refined and unrefined carbohydrates. Losing weight is as simple as cutting carbohydrate consumption to around 20 grams a day and eating as much of the remaining foods to keep you from being hungry. It's working for my wife, my daughter, and me and I'm not cutting carbs as much as them.

You will notice that researchers that speak well of high protein diets, won't also speak well of fats. This is to avoid the Ivy League boys condemnation!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
So, RobertMac, why do you give these heroes of yours a pass, while CBB and NCBA, with much more to lose (the Beef Checkoff dollars which they must spend wisely and effectively, as well as answer to cattle producers back home) are savgely attacked by you for their inability to outmaneuver or overpower those entrenched and powerful entities?????

Tex, obviously you have not had any experience with Beef Checkoff leadership. Only those who are actively working as directors of the Beef Checkoff get any 'free' lunch.......and those lunches are more often than not working lunches and the director/committee members are DONATING their time, with their skimpy expenses most likely not fully covered. AND membership dues are closely watches, as well.

When are you going to share the documentation of misdeeds you must have to make such accusations valid?

Do either of you realize that the dues-payer Policy division of NCBA does NOT have any control or use of Beef Checkoff activities or dollars?

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
So, RobertMac, why do you give these heroes of yours a pass, while CBB and NCBA, with much more to lose (the Beef Checkoff dollars which they must spend wisely and effectively, as well as answer to cattle producers back home) are savgely attacked by you for their inability to outmaneuver or overpower those entrenched and powerful entities?????

Tex, obviously you have not had any experience with Beef Checkoff leadership. Only those who are actively working as directors of the Beef Checkoff get any 'free' lunch.......and those lunches are more often than not working lunches and the director/committee members are DONATING their time, with their skimpy expenses most likely not fully covered. AND membership dues are closely watches, as well.

When are you going to share the documentation of misdeeds you must have to make such accusations valid?

Do either of you realize that the dues-payer Policy division of NCBA does NOT have any control or use of Beef Checkoff activities or dollars?

mrj

Some minds are like concrete thoroughly mixed up and permanently set. :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If NCBA and the CBB is not combating fallacies about our product, they should lose the job of promoting it. Not only are they not fighting it, they're joining it!

The last beef ad I heard was talking about eating 3 oz of lean beef. That is promoting our product? We pay millions into the program to have our product promoted and this is the message they put out? We're going to increase sales by having people eat 3 oz. of lean beef? Hours D'vours are going to pay the bills? That ad was counterproductive.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
If NCBA and the CBB is not combating fallacies about our product, they should lose the job of promoting it. Not only are they not fighting it, they're joining it!

The last beef ad I heard was talking about eating 3 oz of lean beef. That is promoting our product? We pay millions into the program to have our product promoted and this is the message they put out? We're going to increase sales by having people eat 3 oz. of lean beef? Hours D'vours are going to pay the bills? That ad was counterproductive.

The USDA is promoting to the public to eat 3-4 ounces of lean beef with your meal.

That's a portion about the size of a deck of cards. :roll:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
What the ad should have said is that 1lb. of beef will replace your potato chips, candy bars, salad, and vegetables ,and you will be satisfied after your meal.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
If NCBA and the CBB is not combating fallacies about our product, they should lose the job of promoting it. Not only are they not fighting it, they're joining it!

The last beef ad I heard was talking about eating 3 oz of lean beef. That is promoting our product? We pay millions into the program to have our product promoted and this is the message they put out? We're going to increase sales by having people eat 3 oz. of lean beef? Hours D'vours are going to pay the bills? That ad was counterproductive.

The USDA is promoting to the public to eat 3-4 ounces of lean beef with your meal.

That's a portion about the size of a deck of cards. :roll:

What that was saying was that our product is so bad for you, you should only eat a certain type of it in small quantities - and we paid for it. :shock:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
...as well as answer to cattle producers back home...

You don't consider any of us "cattle producers back home"??????
It's a "savage attack" to point out that the beef industry has declined and the "cattle producers back home" are getting less of the consumer's dollar?????
 

mrj

Well-known member
Let's see now, I'm chastized when I don't anwer your questions (even at times I've not SEEN them), yet you don't answer my questions of you!

All of you seem to know that the forces promoting choosing foods from ALL food groups have backing of government and the majority of the nutrition, medical, and scientific communities, as well as consumer organizations, YET you insist CBB, Federation of State Beef Councils and other Checkoff leaders, AND the Policy division (which CANNOT control the Checkoff or it's money!) ALL are derelict in their duties when they do not tackle all those agencies and groups and WIN ever battle. You are amazing!

Boys, will someone please show us how the current per capita consumption of beef is reached? How is that figured? I recall that quite a number of years ago, when our population was much smaller than today, the average was around 2.6 ounces per day.

Why do none of you accept the Beef DEMAND as more important than the Beef CONSUMPTION numbers? Please show us your numbers used to reach your conclusion.

RobertMac, your standards have slipped quite a bit if you simply make snide remarks about my mind instead of bringing VALID counterpoints to my points.

Mike, is that USDA 'promotion' for lean beef specifically, or is it 'protein', and do they limit it to ONE meal, or two per day?

Realizing that only the one or more pounds of beef, plus probably a like amount of beef fat PER MEAL 3 X per day ads would make RobertMac happy, many valuable, even necessary, nutrients would be eliminated from the body without eating foods containing those not found in beef and fat alone?

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, I couldn't give a crap less if it's NCBA policy division, dues division, BS division .... that's involved. NCBA is NCBA. I'm also not going to debate consumption/demand or the price of tea in China - none of that has a dang thing to do with what we're trying to draw you a picture about.

Nobody expects the CBB to fight and win every battle, but we do expect them to try. That is what the heck they were created for! That is why we pay into the dang thing! What some of us are torked off about is that a market damaging falsehood about our product is being perpetuated and the NCBA owned CBB is not only not combating it, they are repeating it! They're using it as a sales pitch! We want people to be told how great and nutricious all beef is, eat a lot of it it every day, and they are telling them to eat just a little bit of only a certain type? Just how in the hell is that message going to move any product?

All we ask of you is to quit making excuses for them and trying to BS us with nonsense like "they can't say anything unless it has been proven" when what they are saying now hasn't been proven!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Is plastic making us fat?
Researchers are exploring whether exposure to common chemicals during early development could set us up for a lifetime battle with the bulge By Beth Daley
Globe Staff / January 14, 2008
Being fat has long been seen as a personal problem, fixed only by struggling against the proliferation of fast food restaurants, unlucky genes, and a sedentary life.

As wealthy colleges eliminate loans, others feel pressure to compete
But could something in the environment also be making Americans fat in epidemic numbers?

Animal studies in recent years raise the possibility that prenatal exposure to minuscule amounts of common chemicals - found in everything from baby bottles to toys - could predispose a body to a life of weight gain. The chemicals, known as endocrine disrupters, mimic natural hormones that help regulate, for example, how many fat cells a body makes and how much fat to store in them.

These findings have led some scientists to put forth a provocative argument: They say diet and too little exercise clearly are key reasons for the worldwide rise in obesity in the past 20 years, but they may not be the only ones. Food intake and exercise just haven't changed that much in that period, they argue. And while genetics obviously play a role - just think of someone you know who can eat three Big Macs a day and never gain an ounce - these researchers say it would be impossible to see such widespread genetic change in just two decades, giving them more reason to suspect the environment.

"This is a really new area . . . but from multiple labs on multiple levels we are getting preliminary data that all say the same thing: Chemicals can play a role," said Jerry Heindel, a program administrator for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "We know that nutrition and exercise are very, very important, but underlying that could be environmental exposures during development that alter your physiology, including how you respond to food and exercise."

Thousands of chemicals have come on the market in the past 30 years, and some of them are showing up in people's bodies in low levels. Scientists studying obesity are focusing on endocrine disrupters - which have already been linked to reproductive problems in animals and humans - because they have become so common in the environment and are known to affect fat cells.

One key researcher in the field, Bruce Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, has even coined a new word for chemicals that can make you fat: Obesogens.

A recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that about 93 percent of the US population had bisphenol A, a chemical that can be found in canned goods and in hard, clear plastic items such as baby bottles and hiking containers, in their body. A study at the University of Missouri-Columbia showed that mice fed bisphenol A during early development - at lower amounts than what would have resulted in the levels found in most people in the CDC study - become markedly more obese as adults than those that weren't fed the chemical. Tufts University scientists observed similar phenomenon in rats.

The chemical industry, however, disputes those studies and says dozens of others that examined bisphenol A showed no weight gain.

more stories like this"The scientific evidence shows that bisphenol A . . . does not have any effect on body weight," said Steven Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate/BPA global group of the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers.

Bisphenol A is only one of the chemicals scientists are studying. Blumberg's lab has also studied tributyltin, an endocrine disrupter that is used as an antifungal agent in agriculture and in marine paints to keep ship hulls free of barnacles. Female mollusks exposed to the chemical were seen to grow male sex organs. Lab mice exposed to tiny levels of tributyltin during prenatal development became fatter adults than those not given the chemical.

"It predisposed them for life," said Blumberg.

These scientists are focusing on early development because it is a critical time for determining a baby's long-term health and weight. For example, studies show that babies born underweight are likely to be fatter later in life, possibly because undernourished fetuses learn to use fat cells more efficiently - and it gets embedded in their physiology. Researchers suspect the same thing may be taking place with chemical exposures.

Exposure "can be critical on the front end of one's life where the rest of your life's physiology is being programmed," said Frederick vom Saal, a biological scientist at the University of Missouri-Columbia who studies bisphenol A.

His lab is studying genes in the fat cells of mice to better understand why the animals became fatter when exposed to the chemical.

Growing up with more fat cells isn't necessarily a problem if you are running around a lot, says Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences, which publishes the online journal Environmental Health News. But in a world where exercise is down and poor diets abound, it could exacerbate a weight problem.

Vom Saal says as people become adults, they may be able to shake off the weight with extreme diet and exercise, but it won't be easy. "It is a very intractable thing to change," he said.

Scientists who study obesity's link to chemicals say the research is still in its infancy. Among the many unanswered questions that remain: How do the changes happen? What about the combined impact of exposure to many chemicals? Are humans affected by the chemicals the same way as animals?

For those who don't want to wait until all the evidence is in, there is another question: How to avoid these chemicals now?

"It can be difficult," said Felix Grun, assistant researcher in the department of developmental and cell biology at the University of California who works with Blumberg. To minimize exposure to bisphenol A, Grun said people can avoid buying plastics with the recycling number 7 marked on the bottom, but similar types of chemicals abound in other products, too. "These compounds are everywhere, the carpet fibers, the PVC piping, etc," he said.

Scientists say years of research into a once-popular synthetic hormone - diethylstilbestrol (DES) - also bolsters their belief that chemical exposure during early development can affect weight later in life. DES was once given to women to prevent miscarriages until it was linked to cancer in female offspring. Now, research by Retha R. Newbold at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences shows that mice exposed to DES in utero are fatter than those not given the chemical.

Ana Soto, a Tufts University professor who studies endocrine disrupters and development, says scientists already know that the most serious health problems of DES impact mice and humans similarly. Now that mice exposed to low levels of bisphenol A are behaving much the same way they do when exposed to DES, it makes sense to conclude that humans may be at risk too. She wants the chemicals like bisphenol A to be regulated by the federal government.

"What else are we waiting for?" Soto asked. "There is evidence these chemicals have a multitude of deleterious effects in animals. . . We should be worried."
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
graybull said:
There are NO known and/or required nutrients that can't be obtained from sufficient quantities of beef products.

There is one...vitamin C, but, it presented no problems, according to studies, with diets high in protein and fat. I guess that makes it not "required".
A small glass of orange juice in the morning would make that a moot point!

Nice to know you are keeping an eye on things here! :wink: :)
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Hormone Growth Promoters Fed to Beef Cattle Linked to Adverse Impacts on Male Sexual Development
May 2007
Almost all beef cattle entering feedlots in the United States are given hormone implants to promote faster growth. The first product used for this purpose – DES (diethylstilbestrol) – was approved for use in beef cattle in 1954. An estimated two-thirds of the nation’s beef cattle were treated with DES in 1956 (Marcus, 1994, cited in Swan et al., 2007).

Today, there are six anabolic steroids given, in various combinations, to nearly all animals entering conventional beef feedlots in the U.S. and Canada:

Three natural steroids (estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone), and
Three synthetic hormones (the estrogen compound zeranol, the androgen trenbolone acetate, and progestin melengestrol acetate).

Anabolic steroids are typically used in combinations. Measurable levels of all the above growth-promoting hormones are found at slaughter in the muscle, fat, liver, kidneys and other organ meats. The Food and Drug Administration has set “acceptable daily intakes” (ADIs) for these animal drugs.

Questions and controversy over the impacts of these added hormones on human development and health have lingered for four decades. In 1988 the European Union banned the use of all hormone growth promoters. The ADIs on the books for years are based on traditional toxicity testing methods and do not reflect the capacity of these drugs, which are potent endocrine disruptors, to alter fetal and childhood development. According to Swan et al. (2007) –

“…the possible effects on human populations exposed to residues of anabolic sex hormones through meat consumption have never, to our knowledge, been studied. Theoretically, the fetus and the prepubertal child are particularly sensitive to exposure to sex steroids…”

This gap in research is remarkable, given that every beef-eating American for over 50 years has been exposed to these hormones on a regular basis. To begin to explore possible impacts, Swan et al. (2007) carried out a study assessing the consequences of beef consumption by pregnant women on their adult male offspring. The families included in the study were recruited from the multicenter “Study for Future Families” (SFF).

The study team assessed sperm quantity and quality among 773 men. Data on beef consumption during pregnancy was available from the mothers of 387 men. These mothers consumed, on average, 4.3 beef meals per week, and were divided into a high beef consumption group (more than seven meals per week) and a low-consumption group (less than 7 per week).

The scientists compared sperm concentrations and quality among the men born to women in the high and low beef consumption groups. They found that:
Sperm concentration (volume) was 24.3 percent higher in the sons of mothers in the “low” beef consumption group.
Almost 18 percent of the sons born to women in the high beef consumption group had sperm concentrations below the World Health Organization threshold for subfertility – about three-times more than in the sons of women in the low consumption group.

The authors concluded that –

“These findings suggest that maternal beef consumption is associated with lower sperm concentration and possible subfertility, associations that may be related to the presence of anabolic steroids and other xenobiotics in beef.”

This study lends urgency to the long-recognized need for the FDA to reconsider the acceptable daily intakes of hormones used to promote growth in beef feedlots. This reassessment will, in all likelihood, be resisted by the animal drug and beef industries, and once begun, will take many years to be carried out. In the interim, families wanting to avoid the risk of developmental problems in their male children can do so by choosing organic beef.

Source: “Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy”

Authors: S.H. Swan, F. Liu, J.W. Overstreet, C. Brazil, and N.E. Skakkebaek

Journal: Human Reproduction, Advance Access published online March 28, 2007.
 
Top