Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

And now, this meaty story...


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

I haven't really taken part in the great Newton veganism debate (not an area of interest) but this story might matter to those on here who have.

International researchers say dietary advice to eat less red meat may have been in error

Quote

Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh. Don't really like how misleading this article is.

Quote

“It is important to recognize that this group reviewed the evidence and found the same risk from red and processed meat as have other experts,” she said in a statement. “So they’re not saying meat is less risky; they’re saying the risk that everyone agrees on is acceptable for individuals.”

So effectively this is nothing new. Just an analysis of old studies with a different conclusion based around the concept of an opinionated idea, which is a big enough variable to change the outcome of something like this.

Harvard recently published their own article in counter to this new upbringing of ideas:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/

Quote

A controversial “dietary guidelines recommendation” published in Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that adults can continue to consume red meat and processed meat at current levels of intake. [1]

This recommendation runs contradictory to the large body of evidence indicating higher consumption of red meat—especially processed red meat—is associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancers, and premature death. However, according to the Annals authors, their guidelines were based on a series of “rigorous” systematic reviews (published simultaneously [2-6]) that would presumably account for all this available evidence.

-The new guidelines are not justified as they contradict the evidence generated from their own meta-analyses. 

-The publication of these studies and the meat guidelines in a major medical journal is unfortunate because following the new guidelines may potentially harm individuals’ health, public health, and planetary health

-This is a prime example where one must look beyond the headlines and abstract conclusions.

-These studies should not change current recommendations on healthy and balanced eating patterns for the prevention of chronic diseases.

The Harvard review concludes this to be the optimal dietary plan:

Quote

To improve human health, it is important to adopt dietary patterns that are high in healthy plant-based foods and relatively low in red and processed meats.

Irony of it all appears to be nutritional research supports the idea veganism is the most optimal dietary plan for human health. I assume both Cam Newton and @Jeremy Igo are fond of that news.

I highly doubt that Cam Newton is more "injury prone" from a vegan diet. Far from it. And him slimming down isn't because he's unable to acquire all the nutrients he needs to stay big. More likely it was a choice for him to slim down, because it wouldn't be hard to bulk up even on a vegan diet. Plenty have done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Huddler said:

people need to do more fasting

 

bottom line

or, more accurately, the more calories you burn compared to consume, the more weight you will lose. likewise, the more calories you consume compared to burn, the more weight you put on.

weight can simply be altered by calculating one's TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) and consuming less/more calories than that.

counting calories is ultimately the best way to lose weigh alongside diligence in limiting the foods you eat to a certain max calorie threshold. you could literally eat cookies and icecream as your only diet and lose weight as long as you don't exceed your caloric threshold.

of course, the reason varied diets full of healthy foods are recommended are due to their usually low calorie content + filling ability alongside the macros and nutrients in it that help supplement the body to keep it healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not a full blown conspiracy theorist, but I don’t trust media in this new age. It’s not that these new studies can’t possibly be true. I’m just not easily convinced. I did a no meat diet for 3 months a couple years ago & felt amazingly great, just as advertised by others that live that lifestyle. After that I still eat meat but I don’t see it as a necessity like I previously did and I keep my portions to a minimum. So that experience mixed with the fact that more vegans & vegetarians (the numbers are growing by the day) means less American dollars being spent on meat. Imagine how much money that is. These “new”studies and findings are just fishy to me. Like this one for example

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/25/health/best-drinks-for-hydration-wellness/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you a top level athlete . Burning as many calories as you eat.and need to recover as soon as possible.  True protein  from real protein  sources are essential. its not like your going to get fat or even retain any of that fat as an NFL pro. Your body is going to use that to regenerate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I've really only begun to pay attention this week being that training camp is looming, so I was personally caught off guard by the fact that Nic Scourton remains unsigned. That's not necessarily bad news, but it's not necessarily good news either. Apparently it's a thing with this year's draft class. "Of the 32 players selected in the second-round, 30 remained unsigned and the clock is ticking. "Already we've seen one second-round pick hold out from the start of training camp with that player being Los Angeles Chargers' wide receiver Tre Harris. Harris did not report with the rest of the Chargers' rookies on Saturday due to his contract situation, a issue that could impact nearly every other team in the league. "For the Panthers, defensive end Nic Scourton is the player to watch for when rookies start showing back up to the team facilities next week. "The 51st overall pick is one of the 30 second-rounders who has yet to sign their rookie contract and the reason why is due to the other two that have actually signed. "Cleveland Browns' linebacker Carson Schwesinger and Houston Texans' wide receiver Jayden Higgins each signed fully guaranteed contracts as the first and second players drafted in the second-round. Prior to this year, second-round picks never received a fully guaranteed deal, only players selected in the first-round." https://atozsports.com/nfl/carolina-panthers-news/panthers-nic-scourton-contract-second-round-pick-training-camp-hold-out-tre-harris/ So, I suppose we'll see what's what pretty soon. It's definitely something to monitor.
    • overwhelming majority of kids in travel ball aren't getting scholarships though because most teams are rec caliber (and not watched by scouts)    and parents/leagues sort of helped create this system and narrative IMO where travel ball is now oversaturated and most of it is simply expensive rec ball.  is travel beneficial for some athletes to get more exposure? Sure. The ones travel actually existed for.   I still think travel has expanded entirely too broad at this stage......where they will now have 5 teams per year in your backyard area pending they can get parents to write those checks.   Ain't no scout ever laying eyes on 90%+ of the kids in travel ball at this stage of where it has morphed into.     
    • Im really curious to see how the defense is going to look once its playing with some leads.
×
×
  • Create New...