1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI have already told you. Reminder:
In effect? An actual study about grain fed organic beef?
"...No, no need. Only have to show a link showing why eating much of ANY red meat is generally bad for you and obviously that is regardless of whether it is 'organic' and that obviously includes "organic grass fed beef" :
http://health.india.com/news/revealed-why-red-meat-is-so-bad-for-your-heart/
"...Replacing red meat portions in your diet with vegetables may be a good recipe for your heart as scientists have now discovered a strong association between heme iron, found only in meat, and potentially deadly coronary heart disease....
Heme iron consumption increased the risk for coronary heart disease by 57 percent, the study warned. “Heme iron is absorbed at a much greater rate in comparison to non-heme iron (37 percent vs. five percent),”
...
...The body can better control absorption of iron from vegetable sources, including iron supplements, but not so with iron from meat sources, showed the findings of the research. For the study, the researchers examined 21 previously published studies and data involving 292,454 participants.
..."
the problem with eating red meat is that it is so high in heme iron it gives you too much iron that is digested and absorbed all at once causing an excessive iron spike and that increases you risk of coronary heart disease and several other serious health problems.
Now, why would 'organic' red meat not contain this heme iron? Obviously it does. -if you admit it makes little difference to the heme iron content whether it is 'organic' , then why would the heme iron from organic red meat be any less dangerous to health than that from none-organic red meat? -it has exactly the same chemical formula after all in both cases.
I can show you other links showing more research that shows this on request.
Now I have shown what I claim is based on known science, can you show a link to a valid scientific study that shows this above claim about iron is false? ?
..."
-I have already explain perfectly clearly. please STOP pretending I haven't.
Originally posted by humyIf they haven't done a study on organic grass fed beef, then they are talking out their arses too.
I have already told you. Reminder:
"...[b]No, no need. Only have to show a link showing why eating much of ANY red meat is generally bad for you and obviously that is regardless of whether it is 'organic' and that obviously includes "organic grass fed beef" :
http://health.india.com/news/revealed-why-red-meat-is-so-bad-for-your-heart/
"...Replacin ...[text shortened]... alse? ?
..."
-I have already explain perfectly clearly. please STOP pretending I haven't.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarBut they HAVE, in effect, done such a study. Isn't organic grass fed beef high in heme iron just like any other beef? YES OR NO? -answer, yes. And their study shows that this heme iron causes cancer and heart disease. Case closed.
If they haven't done a study on organic grass fed beef, then they are talking out their arses too.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyhttp://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/10/15/carcin.bgt290.abstract
But they HAVE, in effect, done such a study. Isn't organic grass fed beef high in heme iron just like any other beef? YES OR NO? -answer, yes. And their study shows that this heme iron causes cancer and heart disease. Case closed.
Red meat intake has been linked to increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, experimental studies suggest a role for dietary heme iron.
How it happens is unclear. Could it be that something else is at play? Could it be that there is something other in the food that creates the problem?
http://drsircus.com/medicine/new-cancer-fungus-theory
I found this interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22259193
Dietary intakes of zinc and heme iron from red meat, but not from other sources, are associated with greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease.
Only the red meat and I wonder why other sources do not have bad effects? Could it be the grains the beef is fed and the resulting problems from that meat?
Originally posted by Eladar
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/10/15/carcin.bgt290.abstract
[b]Red meat intake has been linked to increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, experimental studies suggest a role for dietary heme iron.
How it happens is unclear. Could it be that something else is at play? Could it ...[text shortened]... bad effects? Could it be the grains the beef is fed and the resulting problems from that meat?[/b]
How it happens is unclear.
Can't you read? They just said the “underlying mechanisms remain unclear”, NOT that it happens “remains unclear”. No matter how you try and twist it, it says exactly what it says.
Only the red meat and I wonder why other sources do not have bad effects? Could it be the grains the beef is fed and the resulting problems from that meat?
No. Because they just said: “Dietary intakes of zinc and heme iron from red meat, but not from other sources, are associated with greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. “
“other sources” includes grains.
Again, you appear to logically contradict the assertions they make.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThe only meat is red meat?How it happens is unclear.
Can't you read? They just said the “[b]underlying mechanisms remain unclear”, NOT that it happens “remains unclear”. No matter how you try and twist it, it says exactly what it says.
[quote] Only the red meat and I wonder why other sources do not have bad effects? Could it be the grains the beef is ...[text shortened]... r sources” includes grains.
Again, you appear to logically contradict the assertions they make.[/b]
I didn't think that heme iron came from grains.