Polan on Paleo

[MachineGhost]

It's hard for my mom too. She considers herself a health nut and guzzles whole grains like there's no tomorrow. I've tried to convince her of this stuff but have such difficulty getting through. The most common response is basically, "But… but… FIBER!" She has a body type that never seems to put on any weight so there haven't been any clear consequences to her but my father has suffered under the avalanche of grains IMHO.

I think the fiber issue gets down played a little too much.  The gut is very sensitive (it is the second brain, after all) to fiber intake and it does not feel right when the level is reduced nor will you feel right if you don't feel like you completely voided.  Since insoluble fiber is the bulk forming fiber we're all addicted to for healthy pooping, soluble is not exactly a drop-in replacement when quitting grains/legumes/nuts/seeds.  I've had to add apple fiber (75% insoluble, 25% soluble) to my smoothies to compensate for what I was used to before.  I suggest getting a VitaMix rather than a blender even if the texture and consistency won't exactly be "smooth".

[MachineGhost]

Maybe your mom's genetics have evolved to allow her to consume grains whereas your dad's haven't. Just because Asians can't drink milk, doesn't mean I shouldn't. Overall, I don't think we can remove grains from the food system and still feed 7 billion people. So eventually we will evolve to consume grains with fewer and fewer negative side effects.

We won't be evolving.  Technology will, i.e. cloned meat.  You sound like such a typical Neo-Luddite Liberal where it is fashionably faddish to attack dynanism, progress, technology, capitalism, etc. that I can't help but think that the Ultra-Liberal enclave environment (S.F.?) you live in is actively brainwashing you.

Jeeze, between you and moda, you two just drive me up the wall...  and I ain't even remotely a conservative to begin with!

[doodle]

Maybe your mom's genetics have evolved to allow her to consume grains whereas your dad's haven't. Just because Asians can't drink milk, doesn't mean I shouldn't. Overall, I don't think we can remove grains from the food system and still feed 7 billion people. So eventually we will evolve to consume grains with fewer and fewer negative side effects.

We won't be evolving.  Technology will, i.e. cloned meat.  You sound like such a typical Neo-Luddite Liberal where it is fashionably faddish to attack dynanism, progress, technology, capitalism, etc. that I can't help but think that the Ultra-Liberal enclave environment (S.F.?) you live in is actively brainwashing you.

Jeeze, between you and moda, you two just drive me up the wall...  and I ain't even remotely a conservative to begin with!

hahaha! You're so far right on the spectrum you almost emerge again on the left. I'm all for technology that eases pressure on the environment and makes our activity on this earth more sustainable. And remember, without me and my position you have no point in this relativistic universe to hold on and reference yourself to. So as Jack Nicholson said: "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." 

[MachineGhost]

That means it was built around 10,000BC. By comparison, Stonehenge was built in 3,000 BC and the pyramids of Giza in 2,500 BC.[/size][/font]

That 2,500 BC date is -- no pun intended -- seriously out of date, yet continues to live on as conventional [archeaological] wisdom.  I suspect the author is using such straw-men in his forthcoming book to make for a more exciting story.

There are numerous dumb theories as to the location of the Garden of Eden (such as on Mars!), including one that postulates Southeast Turkey.  But note that the quoted archeologist in the story said it was "of Eden" not the Garden of Eden, so he was probably referring to Mesopotamia.  I suspect he realizes the Bible indicated that the Garden of Eden was between four rivers, and Gobekli Tete is only located between two.  So the archeological evidence still seems to favor the actual Garden of Eden being at the tail end of Mesopotamia, underwater in the Persian Gulf as a consequence of "The Great Deluge" 12,000 years ago (glacial retreat).

[align=center][/align]

And note that I did not even once mention alie...  well, almost!

[Benko]

MG,

assuming one is eating e.g. hormone free antibiotic free pork , what is wrong with pork vs beef?

[MachineGhost]

I'm glad you're back, Gumby. This information is amazing stuff.

We been awaitin' for da showdown for quite some time...

[MachineGhost]

assuming one is eating e.g. hormone free antibiotic free pork , what is wrong with pork vs beef?

Gives you parasites, infections, diseases, cancers if not properly neutralized and rendered safe (in theory).  The Hebrews were onto something.  Much more research will be needed to elucidate the exact hows and whys.

[rocketdog]

Please, don't be that jerk libertarian who goes around telling people their religions are primitive childhood myths. It turns out to be a really bad way to convert people to your mode of thinking. 

For the record, I am not religious myself, but I still find this stuff to be fascinating. If there's archaeological evidence to support a creation myth, that could go a long way to establishing why a group of people might have started a religion surrounding it, no?

Libertarianism has nothing to do with it, and I certainly didn't intend to offend.  I'm not saying their religion is a primitive myth, only certain stories related to it.  Most theologians accept that many biblical stories are allegories and/or parables meant to convey a message, rather than a reporting of historical fact.  Genesis, the Garden of Eden, and the Great Flood are all good examples because today we know that they didn't happen, and in fact we've learned that they were essentially "borrowed" and rewritten from similar stories that had long existed in other religions. 

[rocketdog]

Back on topic.  Here's a thought I had:  humankind obviously evolved in very different places all over the world (once we migrated and spread out, of course).  So do you think that impacts what foods a particular person might benefit from?  For instance, if my ancestors evolved in a mountainous region deep within a continent, then seafood might not be well-suited for me.  There are also tribes that have never had dairy products because they have no access to it, so perhaps that's something they should avoid? 

I wonder if there are "micro-evolutionary" differences between us, based on where our ancestors migrated to, that affect which foods are beneficial or detrimental to us?  If so, how can we ever determine which foods those are?

[MachineGhost]

Libertarianism has nothing to do with it, and I certainly didn't intend to offend.  I'm not saying their religion is a primitive myth, only certain stories related to it.  Most theologians accept that many biblical stories are allegories and/or parables meant to convey a message, rather than a reporting of historical fact.  Genesis, the Garden of Eden, and the Great Flood are all good examples because today we know that they didn't happen, and in fact we've learned that they were essentially "borrowed" and rewritten from similar stories that had long existed in other religions.

Those three events did happen and there is cosmological or archeological evidence for them, but being derived from Sumerian origin stories is irrelevant to most religious believers.  Faith is not about facts or even evidence and yet you seem to be engaging in same as an athiest?

[Gumby]

It's hard for my mom too. She considers herself a health nut and guzzles whole grains like there's no tomorrow. I've tried to convince her of this stuff but have such difficulty getting through. The most common response is basically, "But… but… FIBER!" She has a body type that never seems to put on any weight so there haven't been any clear consequences to her but my father has suffered under the avalanche of grains IMHO.

I think the fiber issue gets down played a little too much.  The gut is very sensitive (it is the second brain, after all) to fiber intake and it does not feel right when the level is reduced nor will you feel right if you don't feel like you completely voided.  Since insoluble fiber is the bulk forming fiber we're all addicted to for healthy pooping, soluble is not exactly a drop-in replacement when quitting grains/legumes/nuts/seeds.  I've had to add apple fiber (75% insoluble, 25% soluble) to my smoothies to compensate for what I was used to before.  I suggest getting a VitaMix rather than a blender even if the texture and consistency won't exactly be "smooth".

The transition off of grains can be challenging. I was stopped up for awhile. Wasn't that fun. Eventually I tried a few things and got myself unclogged. Upping vegetable intake helped a little bit. Eating properly prepared oatmeal two or three times a week helped during the transition a lot (instead of going cold turkey on grains). And that all worked great for awhile, till I got tired of making oatmeal.

I found good advice in the GAPS diet FAQ — since it covers many problems that people have when transitioning off of grains. For instance (and keep in mind that this is for people on a very limited diet)...

If your patient is prone to chronic constipation introduce high-fat dairy: ghee, butter and sour cream, but not high-protein dairy, such as yoghurt, whey, kefir and cheese: high protein dairy can aggravate constipation. High fat content of sour cream will lubricate the gut wall and soften the stool...


Source: http://gapsdiet.com/FAQs.html

In her book, she also recommends daily juicing with fresh and raw beet and or carrots upon wakening. Apparently it works best if it's raw and fresh (not store bought). I didn't have a juicer at the time, so I minced up raw beets and carrots and just chewed them in my mouth until they were juice-like. Worked like a charm.

After a few weeks, if you have a healthy gut, your gut flora just learns to pass well-formed stool without much fiber. The only fiber I get now is from vegetables and potatoes and I have no problems passing stools effortlessly. But, it took some time to get where I am now. Stools are certainly smaller than they used to be, but I think that's probably a good thing.

A similar thing happened with my dog. She was on a grain-based dog food when we got her. Within a few months we learned about the benefits of a raw-meat diet (which is biologically appropriate for a dog). Her poops became much smaller when she started eating the diet she evolved to eat. Makes it a lot easier to scoop up. Ironically, she was eating better than we were at the time.

[Gumby]

assuming one is eating e.g. hormone free antibiotic free pork , what is wrong with pork vs beef?

Gives you parasites, infections, diseases, cancers if not properly neutralized and rendered safe (in theory).  The Hebrews were onto something.  Much more research will be needed to elucidate the exact hows and whys.

For what it's worth, Kresser doesn't buy into the entire pork-will-kill-you meme. He cites evidence of cultures who ate a lot of "properly" raised pork (extremely difficult to find these days). However, he does marinate his pork when possible and tends to eat pork twice a week.

Here's what he said in his podcast:

Steve Wright:  OK, so here’s question number one from Marianne:  “I would love to hear what you think about pork consumption and liver disease, as referenced from an article this week from the Perfect Health Diet website.”?

Chris Kresser:  Yeah, this has caused a little bit of a stir.  So, for those of you that didn’t see it, Paul wrote an article quoting a 2009 study by Bridges showing a stronger correlation between liver cirrhosis and pork than liver cirrhosis and alcohol.  And Paul’s argument was, therefore, that eating pork may cause liver cirrhosis.  But, of course, correlation is not causation.  We talk about this a lot.  That’s research 101.  Two things occurring together does not necessarily mean that one thing causes the other.  So, it’s really crucial and important to understand that basic principle.  And Ned Kock, who has a blog called Health Correlator, which is pretty technical — he’s a statistician and sometimes it’s over my head.  I’m not a statistician.  I get basic statistics, but when it gets really advanced, my eyes start to glaze over.  But this article is pretty easy to follow, and you should check it out if you are concerned about pork consumption after reading Paul’s article.  Ned did a more sophisticated multivariate analysis on the same study, and he found that the total effect of alcohol consumption on cirrhosis was actually 94% stronger than the total effect of pork consumption on cirrhosis.  He also pointed out that another factor that’s associated with liver cirrhosis is obesity, so in countries where pork is a staple, you might think it’s reasonable to assume that pork consumption may be correlated with obesity, but people who consume a lot of junk food also consume a lot of saturated fat, and they show up in the disease stats, but this is exactly the kind of confusion that led to the mistaken idea that saturated fat causes heart disease, right?  So, that idea rose out of epidemiological studies that saw:  Oh, these people are eating a lot of saturated fat and they have heart disease.  But what they didn’t control for was the fact that those people were also eating tons of other processed junk food that could very well have been contributing to heart disease, and it had nothing to do with the saturated fat, because later when they looked at studies that isolated those variables and they just compared saturated fat with other types of fat, they found that saturated fat did not increase the risk of heart disease.  So, we don’t want to make that same mistake here with pork and liver cirrhosis, and that’s why we can’t look at epidemiological data like this and draw causal relationships from it.  So, Ned went on to — just for the other side of the coin — to look at evidence that pork might be good for you.  And he took some data from NationMaster.com on pork and alcohol consumption and life expectancy, and it was a much larger list of countries than was used in the Bridges study, so it included Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US — so a broad representative sample from all different parts of the world.  And in that study, the link between pork consumption and life expectancy is actually positive, with a 0.36 correlation.  So, according to this data set, the more pork is consumed in a country, the longer people live.  And in fact, the data suggested that each additional gram of pork consumed per person per day adds an extra 13 days to their life expectancy.  Now before everyone runs off and goes on a 100% pork diet, you have to realize that this is merely a correlation too, so we can’t draw conclusions about causal relationships from this data either, but we can say that the data don’t prove that pork consumption causes liver cirrhosis unless, perhaps, you become obese from eating it.  Now there was a second part to that question, which was:  What about the idea that pork is a “dirty meat”?, which is somewhat prevalent in the mainstream?  Conventionally raised pigs or pigs raised in confinement feeding operations are given a lot of antibiotics because of the conditions of their confinement, and the problem with this is that just like in humans, if you give animals a lot of antibiotics, they’ll develop antibiotic-resistant super strains of bacteria.  So, Canadian researchers have found antibiotic-resistant staph bacteria in conventionally raised pork products, and that could, indeed, be a problem.  Also improperly cooked and prepared pork may harbor parasites that can cause disease in humans, and there are two helminths or worms that we have in common.  Both humans and pigs can be affected by them, and they cause the same diseases in pigs and in us.  One is the nematode Trichinella spiralis, which causes trichinosis.  That’s the disease most people have heard of associated with pork.  And then a tapeworm, Taenia solium.  And both of these diseases were known to ancient cultures, including the Egyptian and Greek cultures, and then later on Jews and Muslims, which is probably why both Judaism and Islam proscribe the eating of pork.  But today, I mean, if you completely cook pork, if you cook it thoroughly, that should effectively kill the parasites if they’re present, and that’s probably why trichinosis has become pretty rare in the US, because cooking pork thoroughly has become a widespread practice.  And traditionally pork was marinated or cured, i.e. bacon, before cooking because the marinating and curing helped kill the pathogens, as well.  So, if you’re concerned about the potential of pathogens in pork, (1) don’t eat conventionally raised pork.  Get grass-fed, pasture-raised pork from a local farmer or a farmers’ market or a store that sells that.  And that will reduce the risk of super strains of antibiotic-resistant staph that you would find in conventionally raised pork.  (2)  You can marinate or cure pork before eating it.  One way to do that without using nitrates or nitrite salts is just to use a little bit of salt and a natural sweetener, like maple sugar, to treat the meat, to marinate it for a period of time, maybe 18 hours, 24 hours, and some spices with flavor, and then just make sure to cook it all the way through, and it shouldn’t be an issue.  So, you know, based on the evidence that I’ve seen, I don’t think that you can make an argument that pork is unhealthy or is associated with disease.  I think you can make an argument that undercooked pork or improperly prepared pork that’s raised in confinement feeding operations can contribute to that, but I think we need to be a little more specific, you know, when we make these kinds of statements.

Steve Wright:  I’m glad you cleared that up, because I was really sweating about my bacon.

Chris Kresser:  Ha-ha, I know!  A lot of people out there were freaking out.  Don’t mess with their bacon.

Steve Wright:  Do you eat pork on a regular basis at all?

Chris Kresser:  I do eat pork.  I like pork, and we get it from a local farm, and we do marinate it and prepare it that way, and we often, you know, we cook it for — we’ll usually slow cook pork, like, if we get a pork shoulder roast or something like that, and we’ll turn it into carnitas, and we’ll roast it for a long period of time at a low temperature, and that will kill any potential pathogens in there.  I do eat bacon.  I’m not, you know, I don’t eat it every day, but I have it probably two or three times a week.  And I love pork chops, actually.  That’s one of my favorite kinds of meat.  So, I think, like I said, as long as you prepare it well and as long as you cook it thoroughly, it shouldn’t be a problem.  Now the other issue with pork is the omega-6 content, and this has less to do with how the pork is raised, although certainly pork that’s raised in confinement feeding operations is likely to have more omega-6 because of the food that they’re given, but even pasture-raised pork will have more omega-6 than beef or lamb or any other kind of wild game meat, of course.  But it has less omega-6 than chicken, than dark-meat chicken, so I don’t think the omega 6 issue is a reason to completely avoid pork.  I just think it’s probably a reason not to make it your staple meat that you eat every day, twice a day, but I don’t think it’s a reason to avoid it completely.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/the-highly-effe ... -sinusitis

[Gumby]

assuming one is eating e.g. hormone free antibiotic free pork , what is wrong with pork vs beef?

I will say that most average pigs are just fed bakery waste. I had heard that, but didn't really think about it until was at a farm recently and I literally watched it happen. Some girls who worked on the farm walked into the pen with a huge box full of expired hamburger buns and just started unwrapping them and feeding them to the pigs.

Food Renegade explains how a properly raised pig is typically fed:

The best way to buy pork is directly from a farmer you know and trust. These farmers usually have an open farm policy, allowing you to drop in and see how they’re raising their pigs. First, let me clear up a few misconceptions about well-raised pigs.

Everyone loves to throw around the term “pastured”? in reference to pigs. While that’s a helpful term in that it implies that pigs get to spend the majority of their lives outside, it can also mislead people who don’t know very much about how pigs eat. Pigs don’t eat grass exclusively. They are not ruminants; they have but one stomach (much like our own). Pigs are omnivores who love to eat scraps, food waste, grains, and more. On a traditional homestead, pigs are fed “slop”? — a mix of kitchen scraps, the whey leftover from cheesemaking, canning leftovers, you name it. My point? Don’t judge a farm by its feed. What may be unappealing or seem “unhealthy”? to you is in fact what pigs love and thrive on the most.

Second, a well-raised pig gets to forage. Pigs like to graze. They like to use their snout to root around in the straw or dirt and find old acorns and other half-rotted goodies to eat. They like to eat plants like clover, oats, and rye. They like to maw on old tree roots, fermenting corn, and other jewels which you and I probably don’t find very appealing.

Source: http://www.foodrenegade.com/definitive-guide-pork/

The guide has some other good things to look for when purchasing pork.

http://www.foodrenegade.com/definitive-guide-pork/

[Gumby]

Back on topic.  Here's a thought I had:  humankind obviously evolved in very different places all over the world (once we migrated and spread out, of course).  So do you think that impacts what foods a particular person might benefit from?  For instance, if my ancestors evolved in a mountainous region deep within a continent, then seafood might not be well-suited for me.  There are also tribes that have never had dairy products because they have no access to it, so perhaps that's something they should avoid? 

I wonder if there are "micro-evolutionary" differences between us, based on where our ancestors migrated to, that affect which foods are beneficial or detrimental to us?  If so, how can we ever determine which foods those are?

There is some of that going on. Certainly genes play a role. Although, what you typically find is that the right genes exist in most humans, but are either more likely to be "on" or "off" depending on the environment. That can be a little bit different from having (or not having) the right genes. I mean, it's not impossible to change those on/off "switches" as you age. And yes, certain mutations play a role in throwing those switches. But not everyone has the right mutations even when their lineage comes from the right region.

But, more likely you just need the right gut flora for certain foods. For instance, people who eat seaweed have the right gut bacteria (i.e. "microbiome") because A) it's passed from mother to child in the birth canal, and B) because the bacteria for digesting seaweed actually live on the raw seaweed itself. So, if you want to digest seaweed, all you need to do is eat some raw seaweed and now you have the right bacteria in your gut.

The human body is very adaptable in terms of eating "regional" foods. And keep in mind that not everyone in every culture has the right genes, so it's always a crap shoot no matter where you live.

Benko mentioned the following...

"Amylase is an enzyme in the saliva that breaks down starch. People who live in agrarian societies eat more starch and have extra copies of the amylase gene compared with people who live in societies that depend on hunting or fishing."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/scien ... ience&_r=0

Ok.. But that doesn't mean that a person with less Amylase can't eat rice. I mean, having more Amylase just means that your body is breaking down more starch into glucose. My guess (and I could be wrong) is that someone who has less Amylase in their body just gets less glucose from eating rice and poops out whatever starch didn't get digested. I suppose the undigested starch could feed certain bacteria in the person's microbiome, but that's why it pays to eat a variety of foods (and not try to figure out what minority of foods is best for you).

[doodle]

It has been mentioned here that there is a correct and incorrect way to prepare grains. Is there a website that discusses these methods with recipes?

[Gumby]

It has been mentioned here that there is a correct and incorrect way to prepare grains. Is there a website that discusses these methods with recipes?

The Weston A. Price Foundation has the market cornered on ancestral grain preparation...

http://www.westonaprice.org

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com

And the cookbook: http://amzn.com/0967089735

[MachineGhost]

I swear Kresser can rationalize anything!

That being said, I have noticed I dont care for the "dark meat" parts of pork compared to the "light meat" parts.  I assume that means there's more Omega-6 in the "dark meat".

[Gumby]

I swear Kresser can rationalize anything!

I think he just likes to enjoy his food. I think he has a good point. I mean, eating pork once or twice a week will not kill you.

[MachineGhost]

I think he just likes to enjoy his food. I think he has a good point. I mean, eating pork once or twice a week will not kill you.

Maybe not in the short term...

Next thing you know, I'll be converting to Judaism!

[Gumby]

I think he just likes to enjoy his food. I think he has a good point. I mean, eating pork once or twice a week will not kill you.

Maybe not in the short term...

Next thing you know, I'll be converting to Judaism!

Heh. Well, I mean think of it this way. There are certainly much, much worse things than pork that you can eat. And, having it once or twice per week is a far cry from making it your staple food.

[rocketdog]

The Weston A. Price Foundation has the market cornered on ancestral grain preparation...

Well, they're certainly not without their detractors:

The Truth About the Weston Price Foundation

Quackwatch: Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists

Ignore the anti-soya scaremongers

Deadly Dietary Myths

[Benko]

I swear Kresser can rationalize anything!

You have it backwards.  Kresser has more perspective and you put too much faith in/take things too seroiusly. e.,g. from his article:

Weston A. Price identified isolated groups of people, like the traditional Swiss Loetschental, who were exceptionally healthy and subsisted primarily on a diet of bread, milk & cheese.

The mind can rationalize anything.  People tend to believe the mind and this months latest theory too much.  Look at articles (from a few dacades back) on the dangers of global cooling, and the folks who still now even after the earth has stopped warming who refuse to stop believeing in global warming.

[Gumby]

The Weston A. Price Foundation has the market cornered on ancestral grain preparation...

Well, they're certainly not without their detractors:

The Truth About the Weston Price Foundation

Quackwatch: Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists

Ignore the anti-soya scaremongers

Deadly Dietary Myths

It really doesn't bother me at all that they are labeled "quacks". The medical literature supports what they are saying. There is a huge gap between mainstream ideology and what is found in medical literature.

Here's a good example:

So, I want to talk about my new heroes, Stokes and Pillsbury.  The gut-brain-skin axis idea has been around for a long time, and these two guys whom I just learned about recently, they were talking about it as far back as 1909, so over a hundred years ago.  And they had connected emotional states like worry and depression and anxiety with altered gut function.  They knew that changes in the microbial flora promote local and systemic inflammation that can manifest in the skin.  I mean, this is crazy!  If you went into a dermatologist’s office today and you started talking about this, they’d look at you like you were nuts, and they’d call it some kind of alternative quackery....But there’s a difference between being skeptical and conservative and just being uninformed.  I mean, this is in the scientific literature.  If you go and you search on PubMed for intestinal permeability and psoriasis, you’ll see several papers.  If you search for SIBO and acne, you’ll see several papers.  So, it’s interesting to me how when people encounter something that they don’t understand or that seems strange or foreign to them, they dismiss it as being irrelevant or quackery, but in the medical literature, which is supposed to guide clinical practice, it’s right there and it’s been there for over a hundred years.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/naturally-get-r ... g-your-gut

Yep. That's right. SIBO and leaky gut have been in the medical literature for 100 years and mainstream doctors are only just beginning to hear about it.

Rocketdog, when I first learned of the Weston A. Price Foundation, I set out to disprove their work. It was so unsettling to me that what they were saying could be true. As I began to research more and more, I discovered that the medical literature actually validates pretty much everything they are saying.

So, why is mainstream ideology so completely opposite from the medical literature? The answer is money. Corporations fund studies. Corporations fund major health institutions. Corporations fund lobbyists. These corporations expect results and demand specific conclusions and recommendations even if the data clearly says otherwise.

See: New York Times: What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

So, the researchers use terms like "relative risk" and "major risk markers" to convey their erroneous conclusions, while the real absolute data says something completely different. And the government — under pressure from these lobbyists — make broad recommendations with no real science to back them up.

And the people who've actually examined the hard data properly are labeled "quacks".

David H. Freedman of The Atlantic explains why most of these funded studies come to erroneous conclusions:

The Atlantic: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

And the research conclusions you actually hear about in the media is spoonfed to the media by PR departments that are paid for by — you guessed it — corporations who are trying to sell you something (olive oil, statins, grains, etc).

[smurff]

The evidence on "red meat" and "processed meat" seems to be pointing to that it is specifically pork that is the problem (above and beyond the iron content and some questionable "toxin" which name escapes me at the moment), not the typical red meat we think of. 

Remember some years ago, when the pork industry had all those ads saying that pork is the other white meat?They were comparing pork chops to chicken wings!

EDIT:  I found one of the ads:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFAD3Fy96YA
Short, just a few seconds, and there are others.

[rocketdog]

So, why is mainstream ideology so completely opposite from the medical literature? The answer is money. Corporations fund studies. Corporations fund major health institutions. Corporations fund lobbyists. These corporations expect results and demand specific conclusions and recommendations even if the data clearly says otherwise.

Now you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.   Corporations don't fund university studies or hospital studies.  Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again: eat whatever you want.  For me, a vegetarian diet has been the best thing that's ever happened to me health-wise.  I ran my first marathon 6 months ater becoming vegetarian (There's nothing better than making people eat their words after they assure you that no one can possibly finish a marathon without eating meat!)  I'm the healthiest I've ever been in my life, at least according to my doctor. 

Now, don't forget that a lot of this is also genetic.  Any of us could drop dead tomorrow of some unseen problem lurking in our bodies that is unrelated to our diets.  All we can do is play our cards as wisely as we can, and the professional consensus right now is that a relatively low-fat, well-balanced vegetarian diet (or at least quasi-vegetarian diet) is about the best option we know of. 

If the consensus ever shifts in another direction, then I'll be happy to reconsider just as I reconsidered my entire diet when I initially became vegetarian.  But I haven't found the studies I've seen so far to be terribly impressive or convincing, so I'm resigned to sit back and see how things shake out over time. 

Until then, please pass the tofu and lentils!