- He tells me he's 220 lb or that he did 4 hours of extreme exercise yesterday. As we all know size always equates to health doesn't it, oh thats right it doesn't, and neither does strength or endurance. Gazza has told me his has "amazing cardiovascular capability" so surely that is the evidence we need??
- Next he'll name drop Michael Klapper MD, a vegan fanatic whose written and sold books, but I can't find any cridible peer reviewed papers that show any "statistically significant" evidence to back up the claim.
- Then we then ended up down the "China Study" route and sadly when I pointed out that Campbell's full data (yes including the bits he avoided using) showed no 'statistically significant" evidence to prove the statement, yet it did show "statistically significant" data that meat protected against various disease including coronary heart disease. Gazza claimed the article review was biased, its not like Campbell hiding his data could be construed as biased is it? Maybe he just mislaid it!!
- To counter this we went even further down the rabbit hole and Gazza tweeted me this message (it was in a public domain so you can view it if you wish)
Mmmm, Meat Tastes Good Craig, B. (2011) Journal of Nutritional Beliefs and Myths 01:1
Right I need to pull out the big guns, I've read about this MD, he thinks meat tastes good as well. And he's worked cutting people up for years, and he's finds fat in their arteries and a smile on their faces, surely thats proof that meat tastes good right? Did the patients just think meat tastes good? Well no, I think they may also have been prone to eating vegetables and fruit. Oh and some of them may of smoked and drank. Oh and a few might of been sedentary. But that means Jack because my guru say meat tastes good and I trust him. I don't need "statistically significant" evidence, I'm 220 lb's and I believe.
Next on the list will have to be the study done by a guy who loves the taste of meat. He did his research but it seems not all of the data agreed him so he ditched that part and used the bits that agreed with him. This kind of makes his research look bad, but we think he was bullied into hiding his data by the vegan society who didn't want anyone knowing that not everyone thinks meat tastes good. Now I know that makes no sense but I've dug myself a big hole here and I've actually just disproved myself. Lets swap tactics;
I can't believe you still don't agree that Mmmm, meat tastes good. Man your in denial. Not to worry, I was there once and I'm sure your time will come.
What do you mean "but you don't like meat?" Man, its all "if and buts" with you. Your just trying to escape the fact that Mmmmm, meat tastes good!!!
And back to normal... (ish)
Diet is not about one man's belief that he is on the right path because he can wakeboard for 4 hours. Nor is it the right path because Mmmm meat smells good. Nutrition is highly individual, we all need a broad varied diet. Animal fat does not kill, and unless we seperate out all the variables and get disease free subjects that don't smoke, all do the same amount of exercise, all drink the same, never eat any processed foods and are prepared to be split in to categories of meat eaters;
Processed meats (spam, Corned Beef etc) group
Pasture raised meats group
Placebo (not sure how we'd do this)
then we can't even begin to test Gazza's belief. Until then I think we can do the same as Gazza has and gradually distance ourself from the statement "animal fat kills." Bit worrying though as it seems not everyone has the same response to the beloved vegetable. Hmmm!!!
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1553S-1557S. Epub 2009 Mar 18.Inter-individual differences in response to plant-based diets: implications for cancer risk.Lampe JW.SourceFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Nutritional Sciences Program, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. email@example.com
AbstractGenetic differences in taste preference, food tolerance, and phytochemical absorption and metabolism all potentially influence the effect of plant-based diets on cancer risk. Diet is a mixture of carcinogens, mutagens, and protective agents, many of which are metabolized by biotransformation enzymes. Genetic polymorphisms that alter protein expression or enzyme function can modify risk. Genotypes associated with more favorable handling of carcinogens may be associated with less favorable handling of phytochemicals. For example, glutathione S-transferases detoxify polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metabolize isothiocyanates, which are chemopreventive compounds in cruciferous vegetables. A polymorphism in the GSTM1 gene results in lack of GSTM1-1 protein. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest that lack of GSTM1 enzyme is associated with more rapid excretion of the isothiocyanate sulforaphane; therefore, individuals who have this genetic variation may derive less benefit from consuming cruciferous vegetables. Flavonoids are conjugated with glucuronide and sulfate and are excreted in urine and bile. Polymorphisms in UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and sulfotransferases may contribute to variability in phytochemical clearance and efficacy. Genetic polymorphisms in enzymes that metabolize phytochemicals may account in part for variation in disease risk and also have to be considered in the context of other aspects of human genetics, gut bacterial genetics, and environmental exposures.