The opinion of your doctors has little bearing here. And yes, it is only opinion. Scholarly articles have already been posted in this thread, and I could doubtless find a hundred more, that disagree with it. And please don't assume I haven't already spoke to professionals - I studied Nutrition for a year at college and competed as a county-level athlete for many years. The knowledge I gathered during that time contrasts with yours so unless you can bring me something more than 'but my doctor said!' I'll waste no more time on it as we both know it was the weakest part of your argument.
And yes, the source I posted earlier did account for digestibility but even with those amendments removed (I'm not sure why you would do that though, unless you're not planning on digesting your food...?) the results are much the same. Take a look at this article from the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. On Page 3 are the unadjusted results which show the overall biological value of a few protein sources.
Whey Protein: 104
Egg: 100
Milk: 91
Beef: 80
Casein: 77
Soy: 74
Argue until you're blue in the face, the simple fact is there are far higher quality protein sources than beef out there, however you look at it.
We both know that Whey, Milk and Eggs are permissible in a vegetarian diet, please don't gloss over something so obvious. I am not claiming a vegan diet is healthier. That said, thank you for linking me to that article, it was an interesting read (or should I say, some of the links therein were). I seldom ate the stuff anyway...
But you're sorta setting yourself up for a fall by posting an article like that because it invites me to do the same. So here we go, from the United States National Institute of Health. Bolding the relevant parts below for anybody who is just skimming this.
Is that worth it? I'm open minded on this - I enjoy the taste of meat - but I simply cannot justify the well documented health risks alongside the easily substituted nutritional value. The protein is subpar, and Iron, Zinc and Vitamin B12 are ridiculously abundant.
pretty sure i did, but whatever, i'll repeat myself: because you have a significantly lower risk of 'all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality' (see above) and because virtually every other protein source is better, either in amino acid composition (milk, eggs, whey) or in terms of what else it can bring to your diet (nuts, seeds, fish if pescetarian like me, etc.). To my knowledge, this is inarguable.
I'll likely leave it at that unless somebody makes a tantalising counter-argument; I'm not trying to shove anything down anybody's throat...you don't need to justify your meat-eating to anybody, not even yourself. But a little bit of nutritional awareness never hurt anybody...
And yes, the source I posted earlier did account for digestibility but even with those amendments removed (I'm not sure why you would do that though, unless you're not planning on digesting your food...?) the results are much the same. Take a look at this article from the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. On Page 3 are the unadjusted results which show the overall biological value of a few protein sources.
Whey Protein: 104
Egg: 100
Milk: 91
Beef: 80
Casein: 77
Soy: 74
Argue until you're blue in the face, the simple fact is there are far higher quality protein sources than beef out there, however you look at it.
We both know that Whey, Milk and Eggs are permissible in a vegetarian diet, please don't gloss over something so obvious. I am not claiming a vegan diet is healthier. That said, thank you for linking me to that article, it was an interesting read (or should I say, some of the links therein were). I seldom ate the stuff anyway...
But you're sorta setting yourself up for a fall by posting an article like that because it invites me to do the same. So here we go, from the United States National Institute of Health. Bolding the relevant parts below for anybody who is just skimming this.
A new study adds to the evidence that eating red meat on a regular basis may shorten your lifespan. The findings suggest that meat eaters might help improve their health by substituting other healthy protein sources for some of the red meat they eat.
Past research has tied red meat to increased risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. The studies have also pointed to an elevated risk of mortality from red meat intake. But most of these studies were done over limited periods of time, had design flaws, or were done in populations with diets other than that of the typical American.
A research team led by Dr. Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health set out to learn more about the association between red meat intake and mortality. They studied over 37,000 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (beginning in 1986) and over 83,000 women from the Nurses' Health Study (beginning in 1980). All the participants were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the start of the study.
The participants filled out food frequency questionnaires every 4 years. The scientists also gathered information every 2 years on a variety of other health factors, including body weight, cigarette smoking and physical activity level. The study was supported by NIH’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). It appeared online in Archives of Internal Medicine on March 12, 2012.
Almost 24,000 participants died during the study, including about 5,900 from cardiovascular disease and about 9,500 from cancer. Those who consumed the highest levels of both unprocessed and processed red meat had the highest risk of all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. After adjusting for other risk factors, the researchers calculated that 1 additional serving per day of unprocessed red meat over the course of the study raised the risk of total mortality by 13%. An extra serving of processed red meat (such as bacon, hot dogs, sausage and salami) raised the risk by 20%.
The researchers estimated that substituting 1 serving per day of other foods—like fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy and whole grains—for red meat could lower the risk of mortality by 7% to 19%. If the participants had all consumed fewer than half a serving per day (about 1.5 ounces) of red meat, the scientists calculated, 9.3% of the deaths in men and 7.6% of the deaths in women could have been prevented.
“Our study adds more evidence to the health risks of eating high amounts of red meat, which has been associated with type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain cancers in other studies,” says lead author Dr. An Pan.
Since this was an observational study in which people reported their own food intake, it's possible that the associations seen may be due to other factors. When the researchers accounted for known risk factors in red meat—like saturated fat, dietary cholesterol and iron—they still couldn't account for all of the risk associated with eating red meat. Other mechanisms may be involved, or other unknown factors may affect the results. Further study will be needed to fully understand the connection between red meat consumption and health.
Past research has tied red meat to increased risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. The studies have also pointed to an elevated risk of mortality from red meat intake. But most of these studies were done over limited periods of time, had design flaws, or were done in populations with diets other than that of the typical American.
A research team led by Dr. Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health set out to learn more about the association between red meat intake and mortality. They studied over 37,000 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (beginning in 1986) and over 83,000 women from the Nurses' Health Study (beginning in 1980). All the participants were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the start of the study.
The participants filled out food frequency questionnaires every 4 years. The scientists also gathered information every 2 years on a variety of other health factors, including body weight, cigarette smoking and physical activity level. The study was supported by NIH’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). It appeared online in Archives of Internal Medicine on March 12, 2012.
Almost 24,000 participants died during the study, including about 5,900 from cardiovascular disease and about 9,500 from cancer. Those who consumed the highest levels of both unprocessed and processed red meat had the highest risk of all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. After adjusting for other risk factors, the researchers calculated that 1 additional serving per day of unprocessed red meat over the course of the study raised the risk of total mortality by 13%. An extra serving of processed red meat (such as bacon, hot dogs, sausage and salami) raised the risk by 20%.
The researchers estimated that substituting 1 serving per day of other foods—like fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy and whole grains—for red meat could lower the risk of mortality by 7% to 19%. If the participants had all consumed fewer than half a serving per day (about 1.5 ounces) of red meat, the scientists calculated, 9.3% of the deaths in men and 7.6% of the deaths in women could have been prevented.
“Our study adds more evidence to the health risks of eating high amounts of red meat, which has been associated with type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain cancers in other studies,” says lead author Dr. An Pan.
Since this was an observational study in which people reported their own food intake, it's possible that the associations seen may be due to other factors. When the researchers accounted for known risk factors in red meat—like saturated fat, dietary cholesterol and iron—they still couldn't account for all of the risk associated with eating red meat. Other mechanisms may be involved, or other unknown factors may affect the results. Further study will be needed to fully understand the connection between red meat consumption and health.
Is that worth it? I'm open minded on this - I enjoy the taste of meat - but I simply cannot justify the well documented health risks alongside the easily substituted nutritional value. The protein is subpar, and Iron, Zinc and Vitamin B12 are ridiculously abundant.
mattj said:
pretty sure i did, but whatever, i'll repeat myself: because you have a significantly lower risk of 'all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality' (see above) and because virtually every other protein source is better, either in amino acid composition (milk, eggs, whey) or in terms of what else it can bring to your diet (nuts, seeds, fish if pescetarian like me, etc.). To my knowledge, this is inarguable.
I'll likely leave it at that unless somebody makes a tantalising counter-argument; I'm not trying to shove anything down anybody's throat...you don't need to justify your meat-eating to anybody, not even yourself. But a little bit of nutritional awareness never hurt anybody...
