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

What if bad fat isn’t so bad?...Must read!!!!!

RobertMac

Well-known member
The big FAT lie is being exposed...looks like we need to send check-off dollars somewhere other than CBB. Millions of dollars and they haven't been able to expose these dietary/health lies that have/are causing beef to lose consumption. I also found this article from Rush Limbaugh. Here is something someone should pass along to CBB...hire Rush as our beef spokesman...at the very least, he will bring attention to beef. He will be no part of anything that isn't totally truthful...which will be good for us!!!!!

The incompetence of CBB and NCBA is unbelievable!!!!!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, are you willing to take the bad with the good when promoting your favorite diet guru, researcher, spokesman, or TV Network of the moment?

Surely other consumers will notice (and take note of!) one of the links which claims 'researchers' reported a higher risk of several types of cancer, including lung and colorectal in people eating a lot of red meat and processed meats. I seriously doubt they will even read past "red meat" to see that processed meats are part of the reported trigger for cancer.

You seem to delight in claiming CBB and NCBA incompetent in their efforts, yet never admitting their successes in changing some negative attitudes of nutrition and health professionals, cutting consumer fears about beef, and actually increasing beef DEMAND.

Are you ready to accept the blame when fickle consumers turn against that 'guru' of the moment, or follow the next one coming along who trashes beef consumption, accompanied by 'facts' and 'studies' to support his claims?

Never mind that the Masai people lived a very different life, getting tons more exercise than people today generally do, just living their daily lives.

People who walk (or, more importantly, RUN) everywhere they go, without any exceptions, carrying rather than hauling, any load or burden, DO get the needed exercise most of us have to struggle to find time to get, living our fast paced, automobile supported lives.

How can 'studies' possibly ACCURATELY evaluate diets based ONLY on what is consumed, without accurately documented study, comparison and evaluation of the daily physical activity or the real calories burned by the people studied?

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj, did these studies look at the correlation between refined sugar and refined carbohydrates with cancer???? Why do isolated cultures that eat diets high in red meat have almost no cancer, diabetes, or heart disease until they begin eating the "western diet" high in refined sugar and refined carbohydrates??? Do you understand how refined sugar and refined carbohydrates effect our body's systems??? Our genes developed on a diet high in red meat for millions of years, why has red meat become the cause of cancer and heart disease in the last one hundred years????

The article and the book (Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes) are about how the studies that our current diet recommendation are based on are inconclusive or ignore findings that don't support the desired conclusions. You have to understand that "sound science" is more often than not "biased science"...biased toward those that pay for the studies with conclusions that fit a hypothesis.

Stop and think about how many companies would lose money if a cure to western civilization's chronic disease problems were as simple as eating a diet high in red meat and whole foods(I define whole foods as food the way God made them)!!!! We agree on one thing, there is much more money out there attacking red meat than supporting it...truth be damned!!!

But, to answer your question, I believe the studies claiming red meat causes cancer are as big a lie as the studies that claim red meat causes heart attacks!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
It's refreshing to see an article like this on a large stage such as MSNBC. Let's hope it keeps spreading. Wouldn't it be nice if, say.... some organization would be formed to promote beef consumption and they would take articles like this and run with them?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
It's refreshing to see an article like this on a large stage such as MSNBC. Let's hope it keeps spreading. Wouldn't it be nice if, say.... some organization would be formed to promote beef consumption and they would take articles like this and run with them?
If mrj is indicative of the mentality at CBB and NCBA, we won't get any help there!!!!!

What I don't understand is why mrj and other cattlemen that accept conventional 'nutritional dogmatism' would raise cattle?????
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Sandhusker said:
It's refreshing to see an article like this on a large stage such as MSNBC. Let's hope it keeps spreading. Wouldn't it be nice if, say.... some organization would be formed to promote beef consumption and they would take articles like this and run with them?
If mrj is indicative of the mentality at CBB and NCBA, we won't get any help there!!!!!

What I don't understand is why mrj and other cattlemen that accept conventional 'nutritional dogmatism' would raise cattle?????

If we could get articles like this out so that everybody sees them and then get the people behind them in the face of the Heart Assn. and make those "experts" answer some questions and actually defend what they've been preaching for years, cattlemen would be get much more mileage than they would teaching butchers how to cut a steak out of a chuck roast.

MRJ's attititude doesn't surprise me in the least. Every dang thing that comes up that can actually help producers, she finds some reason to be against it. If it isn't signed off on by NCBA, it just can't be a good idea.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Boys, if you would get your heads out of.......your anti-NCBA bias, you would find that I have NEVER said that I BELIEVE the researchers claims that beef is either not good for health, or is bad for human health. Nor has NCBA or CBB leadership.

It is simple, hard fact that UNTIL the preponderance of credible, peer reviewed research shows the errors and fallacies in the currently accepted research and beliefs about nutrition from beef (or conventional nutritional dogma" as Sandhusker chooses to call it), it is dangerous for the cattle/beef industry for leaders to jump onto advertising as absolute fact the miraculous health benefits of beef in any and every story we only HOPE proves to be credible good news.

Erring on the side of caution is better for cattle producers than trying to scrape egg off our faces after an inevitable 'fall' from leaping onto easy bandwagons.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
Boys, if you would get your heads out of.......your anti-NCBA bias, you would find that I have NEVER said that I BELIEVE the researchers claims that beef is either not good for health, or is bad for human health. Nor has NCBA or CBB leadership.

It is simple, hard fact that UNTIL the preponderance of credible, peer reviewed research shows the errors and fallacies in the currently accepted research and beliefs about nutrition from beef (or conventional nutritional dogma" as Sandhusker chooses to call it), it is dangerous for the cattle/beef industry for leaders to jump onto advertising as absolute fact the miraculous health benefits of beef in any and every story we only HOPE proves to be credible good news.

Erring on the side of caution is better for cattle producers than trying to scrape egg off our faces after an inevitable 'fall' from leaping onto easy bandwagons.

mrj

Sandhusker said:
MRJ's attititude doesn't surprise me in the least. Every dang thing that comes up that can actually help producers, she finds some reason to be against it. If it isn't signed off on by NCBA, it just can't be a good idea.
Don't you hate it when she keeps proving you right!!! :roll: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Boys, if you would get your heads out of.......your anti-NCBA bias, you would find that I have NEVER said that I BELIEVE the researchers claims that beef is either not good for health, or is bad for human health. Nor has NCBA or CBB leadership.

It is simple, hard fact that UNTIL the preponderance of credible, peer reviewed research shows the errors and fallacies in the currently accepted research and beliefs about nutrition from beef (or conventional nutritional dogma" as Sandhusker chooses to call it), it is dangerous for the cattle/beef industry for leaders to jump onto advertising as absolute fact the miraculous health benefits of beef in any and every story we only HOPE proves to be credible good news.

Erring on the side of caution is better for cattle producers than trying to scrape egg off our faces after an inevitable 'fall' from leaping onto easy bandwagons.

mrj

You know, MRJ, I agree with you a little. True, you don't jump on something just because it says what you want and proclaim to the world that it is truth. BUT, when there are people saying something that could help out your cause tremendously, as in this case and others that RM has brought, you owe it to you and yours to give it some attention and see if there is indeed something there. It's like if somebody said there was gold in your creek. You don't holler to your neighbors that you're rich, but you damn well put on your waders and go take a look.

If this information is true, it's the same as gold to producers. I submit that the single largest reason people have swapped beef for chicken is because anymore it is considered a given that red meat is bad for you. Exposing that as false could very well be the holy grail for getting our protein market share back.

The beef board was created to get people to eat more beef, they need to at least see if there is any glint in the creek. If there is something there, why in the heck would they wait for somebody else to do their job? Nobody else has the vested interest in an exposee as we do.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
mrj said:
Boys, if you would get your heads out of.......your anti-NCBA bias, you would find that I have NEVER said that I BELIEVE the researchers claims that beef is either not good for health, or is bad for human health. Nor has NCBA or CBB leadership.

It is simple, hard fact that UNTIL the preponderance of credible, peer reviewed research shows the errors and fallacies in the currently accepted research and beliefs about nutrition from beef (or conventional nutritional dogma" as Sandhusker chooses to call it), it is dangerous for the cattle/beef industry for leaders to jump onto advertising as absolute fact the miraculous health benefits of beef in any and every story we only HOPE proves to be credible good news.

Erring on the side of caution is better for cattle producers than trying to scrape egg off our faces after an inevitable 'fall' from leaping onto easy bandwagons.

mrj

You know, MRJ, I agree with you a little. True, you don't jump on something just because it says what you want and proclaim to the world that it is truth. BUT, when there are people saying something that could help out your cause tremendously, as in this case and others that RM has brought, you owe it to you and yours to give it some attention and see if there is indeed something there. It's like if somebody said there was gold in your creek. You don't holler to your neighbors that you're rich, but you damn well put on your waders and go take a look.

If this information is true, it's the same as gold to producers. I submit that the single largest reason people have swapped beef for chicken is because anymore it is considered a given that red meat is bad for you. Exposing that as false could very well be the holy grail for getting our protein market share back.

The beef board was created to get people to eat more beef, they need to at least see if there is any glint in the creek. If there is something there, why in the heck would they wait for somebody else to do their job? Nobody else has the vested interest in an exposee as we do.

Let's touch on a couple of 'truths'...Over millions of years, most human cultures developed and adapted genetically on diets very high in red meats(after all, it was the one food source that was available YEAR AROUND to all cultures and almost exclusively to some). If these modern "studies" are correct in that red meat causes heart disease and cancer, wouldn't the human race be extinct????

Second truth...Many cultures isolated from western culture(diet) have been studied by medical professional and were found to be virtually free of western diseases while on their natural diet(often high in red meat)! But, as soon as these cultures were introduced to our western diet of refined sugar and refined flour, the western diseases began to show up in these cultures!!!!! How did red meat start to make these peoples sick?????

I won't bore you with the facts that high-carb/low-fat diets and calorie restricted/exercise diets almost always have failed the obese! If they worked, over the last thirty years obesity would have been eliminated!!! :eek: :shock: :???:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, you sound just like one of our grandsons did when a college professor called to ask if he could take some students out to look for "heavy metals" along one of our creeks after a flood.

The grandson, about age FIVE years, said "grandma, if they find some heavy metal, maybe we will be rich because gold is metal and it is heavy".

Why do you ASSUME that the beef board is NOT studying these research efforts?

Why do you want them to instantly jump out and proclaim the "holy grail of health foods now is beef" before that is verified as factual?

I've heard some researchers AT NCBA CONVENTIONS, who have very promising work along those lines. Yet if CBB jumped on your bandwagon and it wrecks, a mighty safe bet would be that YOU would go on the attack for using checkoff dollars so foolishly!

Oftentimes, 'slowly and SURELY', wins this kind of race.

RobertMac, again, you seem to be refusing to compare apples to apples, omitting lifesyle changes OTHER than just dietary changes. Even with a BALANCED diet using all the food groups in proper relationship, PLUS exercise builds the best health. It is people who do not eat a well balanced diet, excessively over-consuming sweets and other high carb treats, and who do not exercise who have the most serious weight and health problems. You seem to discount those facts of poor food PORTION CHOICES made from 'Western' diet resources as having any effect on health and obesity.

Which does NOT mean I'm saying there is anything wrong for healthy people choosing a high meat diet over a high carb diet, however, I do believe there could be some net losses of some valuable nutrients in choosing a diet that is not really balanced among food groups.

mrj
 

graybull

Well-known member
A word to the wise............check and see who you are "in bed with"....

A recent report reveals that:

-The American Dietetic Association, which has never met a low-fat processed food it didn't like, is the official association for America's dietitians. It has received financial contributions from, among others, the National Soft Drink Association, ConAgra, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Monsanto, Proctor and Gamble, Potato Board, National Pasta Association, American Soy Products, National Dairy Council, and the National Cattleman's Beef Association.

The ADA issues 'fact sheets' that provide information on various nutrition and health topics. Most of these are underwritten by companies whose products are discussed in the fact sheets. Manufacturers that have given at least $100,000 towards the production of these sheets include Coca-Cola, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Weight Watchers International, Campbell Soup, National Dairy Council, Nestle USA, General Mills, Monsanto, Nabisco, Procter and Gamble, Ross Products, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, and Uncle Ben's.

-The American Heart Association operates a food endorsement program in which the Association's 'heart check' label is awarded to foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol. In order to receive the AHA's heart-check, manufacturers must pay the AHA $7,500 per product for 1-9 products, $6,750 for 10-24 products, and $5,940 for 25-99 products in the initial year. The cost for subsequent years is $4,500, $4,050, and $3,570, respectively. With over 630 products certified, it is estimated that the AHA earned over $2 million from its certification program in 2002.

Among the 'wholesome' foods that the AHA has deemed worthy of its heart-check are:

· General Mills Cheerios, Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp, Corn Chex, and Count Chocula;

· Healthy Choice Low Fat Ice Creams,

· Chocolate Moose Milk Chocolate Drinks;

· Malt-O-Meal Frosted Mini Spooners, Honey Graham Squares, and Honey Nut Toasty O's;

· Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Big Bite;

· Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Cereal Bars;

· Pop-Secret 94% Fat Free Butter Microwave Premium Popcorn.

Pharmaceutical giant Merck, which manufactures the cholesterol-lowering drugs Mevacor and Zocor, is spending $400,000 to finance an AHA program inculcating 40,000 doctors with treatment cholesterol guidelines (these guidelines, by the way, are written by researchers with financial ties to cholesterol-lowering drug manufacturers like Merck(3)). Other lipid-lowering drug manufacturers that contribute to the AHA include Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, and Bristol-Myers-Squibb.

- The American Diabetes Association is America's premiere diabetic organization which, for some bizarre reason, insists that the country's carbohydrate-intolerant diabetics should eat more carbohydrates. Drug companies and manufacturers of fat-free carbohydrate-rich foods are among the companies that stand to benefit from the ADA's regrettable advice and, lo and behold, can also be found on its sponsor sheet.

Among the companies that donated between $100,000-750,000 to the ADA in 2002 are (partial list):

($750,000)
Abbott Laboratories
Aventis Pharmaceuticals
BD Consumer Healthcare
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Eli Lilly and Company
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co., Inc.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer Inc
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.

($500,000+)
Bayer Corporation
Kraft Foods
Roche Diagnostics Corporation

(250,000+)
Abbott Laboratories, Ross Product Division (Glucerna)
AstraZeneca
Merisant U.S., Inc. (Equal Sweetener)
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

($100,000+)
Archway Cookies, LLC
Coolbrands International, Inc. (Eskimo Pie)
CVS/pharmacy
General Mills, Inc. (Fiber One)
Good Neighbor Pharmacy
KOS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Murray Sugar Free Cookies
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Rite Aid Pharmacy
Roche Pharmaceuticals
Schering Plough Healthcare Products, Inc.
Specialty Brands of America (Cary's Sugar Free Cookies)
The Procter & Gamble Company
Voortman Cookies Limited

http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/02/8-year-study-exposes-low-fat-lie.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Why do you want them to instantly jump out and proclaim the "holy grail of health foods now is beef" before that is verified as factual? I've heard some researchers AT NCBA CONVENTIONS, who have very promising work along those lines. Yet if CBB jumped on your bandwagon and it wrecks, a mighty safe bet would be that YOU would go on the attack for using checkoff dollars so foolishly! "

This is what I wrote; " True, you don't jump on something just because it says what you want and proclaim to the world that it is truth." What do you think I meant?

Another question; Why has NCBA accepted the American Heart Assn's recommendations without doing all the research you claim is the holdup in refuting those claims? It looks to me that they quite possibly have already jumped on the doomed bandwagon.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Anything to do with American Heart Assoc., is not something I agreed with for various personal reasons, however that doesn't make it a really wrong decision, either. Fact is, it does help to build credibility of Beef Checkoff to work with groups as respected in the nutrition and medical professional world as is AHA.

Just how widely accepted is AHA in this country? Almost universally would be a pretty accurate answer, I believe.

Accepting what the rest of the nation, probably most of the world, too, accepts from AHA is not all bad, nor does it mean the end of Beef Checkoff research and study of the issue, nor is it unlikely for checkoff leaders to make changes if and when better information is presented.

You claim that you don't believe in "jumping on something....." then you criticize Checkoff leaders, saying they should "give it some attention and see if there is something there"........You obviously did not check into the matter. That is as simple as making a call or an email to either the state or national Beef Board. The fact is that they ARE doing just that, and have been for some time! Whether or not RobertMac's favorite authors and researchers are among those studied or not I do not know, but there are some pretty impressive scientists speaking about either their own, or others' research on beef nutrient benefits for humans at most annual and semi-annual meetings.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Anything to do with American Heart Assoc., is not something I agreed with for various personal reasons, however that doesn't make it a really wrong decision, either. Fact is, it does help to build credibility of Beef Checkoff to work with groups as respected in the nutrition and medical professional world as is AHA.

Just how widely accepted is AHA in this country? Almost universally would be a pretty accurate answer, I believe.

Accepting what the rest of the nation, probably most of the world, too, accepts from AHA is not all bad, nor does it mean the end of Beef Checkoff research and study of the issue, nor is it unlikely for checkoff leaders to make changes if and when better information is presented.

You claim that you don't believe in "jumping on something....." then you criticize Checkoff leaders, saying they should "give it some attention and see if there is something there"........You obviously did not check into the matter. That is as simple as making a call or an email to either the state or national Beef Board. The fact is that they ARE doing just that, and have been for some time! Whether or not RobertMac's favorite authors and researchers are among those studied or not I do not know, but there are some pretty impressive scientists speaking about either their own, or others' research on beef nutrient benefits for humans at most annual and semi-annual meetings.

mrj






How about this for a checkoff add mrj:

One plate of food with a piece of processed chicken patty, the spokesperson going over all the ingredients (not hard to have a long, long list of suspect ingredients) and another with a piece of steak on it with just one ingredient list poken : "steak". Some things are best left simple.
 

Latest posts

Top