Steaks everyday

[paulinkansas]

Their life expectancy suggests the opposite. Same for eskimos.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that their life expectancy was the same as other cultures during the same time. The life expectancy in America in 1776 was 36 years. Now if the eskimos and indians were only living 32 years or less, I would consider it lower than the rest of society at that time.


United States: life expectancy 1860-2020 | Statista
www.statista.com › statistics › life-expectancy-united-state...
Search for: What was life expectancy in 1860?
What was the average lifespan in 1776?
36
The average life expectancy during this era was 36.

[paulinkansas]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that their life expectancy was the same as other cultures during the same time. The life expectancy in America in 1776 was 36 years. Now if the eskimos and indians were only living 32 years or less, I would consider it lower than the rest of society at that time.
.

Well, I was wrong. The eskimo's lived about 10 years less than their Canadian neighbors. 68 years vs 78 years, but that is an old statistic. Currently it's 68 years vs 80 years. So I'm scratching "Live like an Eskimo for 12 months" off my bucket list.

[broganoff]

I don't think comparing average life expectancy between cultures and time periods, and linking it to a diet, makes a whole lot of sense.

In those times you probably had a lot more infant and young child deaths which would weigh down the average. In addition to people dying from things that are easily treated with modern medicine. Plus a lot more young people, especially men, dying in warfare. Context matters.

[EliKoehn]

I don't think comparing average life expectancy between cultures and time periods, and linking it to a diet, makes a whole lot of sense.

In those times you probably had a lot more infant and young child deaths which would weigh down the average. In addition to people dying from things that are easily treated with modern medicine. Plus a lot more young people, especially men, dying in warfare. Context matters.

Yes, exactly this. My degree is in history, and this sort of thing is often overlooked and misrepresented in longevity statistics, where the mean is often what is quoted, when major outlying factors (especially infant mortality) greatly skew this data. Median age is what you should look for, and even then that's going to account for things like being killed instead of dying from natural causes, etc, which doesn't isolate that demographic.

[Mrpb]

The fact that the bison in the study I posted didn’t raise inflammation markers and even lowered a couple versus the beef raising them is nothing to overlook. This would go beyond just the fatty acids profile for that to occur.

Higher omega 6, lower SFA leading to lower inflammation. Nothing surprising. See for example: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1...AHA.118.038908

I don't think there would have been similar differences if they had chosen equally lean beef. But the higher PUFA in bison may still have produced a small advantage as PUFA tends to do well for heart health. But there are many cheaper and healthier ways to get more PUFA in your diet.

[Mrpb]

I don't think comparing average life expectancy between cultures and time periods, and linking it to a diet, makes a whole lot of sense.

Absolutely. We don't even know that native Americans ate a lot of bison. From what I've read they were more plant based eaters.

But Paul was asserting that native Americans were healthier. This is contradicted by the life span data.

In those times you probably had a lot more infant and young child deaths which would weigh down the average. In addition to people dying from things that are easily treated with modern medicine. Plus a lot more young people, especially men, dying in warfare. Context matters.

That's why we compare the life span data to the non native Americans of those times. This doesn't support that native Americans were healthier. I have not seen any other data that supports the claim.

Not that is relevant for the bison meat discussion.

[OT2000]

Higher omega 6, lower SFA leading to lower inflammation. Nothing surprising. See for example: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1...AHA.118.038908

I don't think there would have been similar differences if they had chosen equally lean beef. But the higher PUFA in bison may still have produced a small advantage as PUFA tends to do well for heart health. But there are many cheaper and healthier ways to get more PUFA in your diet.

I don’t doubt there are other ways to get more PUFA and cheaper at that (sardines for example, one of the best foods imo). But for red meat, it’s going to come down to choice. The limitations placed on it are accurate but as a whole I find we need to look at other variables like source of red meat (not just cow), diet of the animal etc. The gamier meats as you noted have higher omega 3(look at moose and elk, as high as many salmon varieties). Better omega 3 to 6 ratio (which imo is more optimal than most think). Should we restrict and categorize these meats like we do cow? Imo, no. They don’t match up close enough and have larger benefits that standard beef lacks.

[AdamWW]

I don’t doubt there are other ways to get more PUFA and cheaper at that (sardines for example, one of the best foods imo). But for red meat, it’s going to come down to choice. The limitations placed on it are accurate but as a whole I find we need to look at other variables like source of red meat (not just cow), diet of the animal etc. The gamier meats as you noted have higher omega 3(look at moose and elk, as high as many salmon varieties). Better omega 3 to 6 ratio (which imo is more optimal than most think). Should we restrict and categorize these meats like we do cow? Imo, no. They don’t match up close enough and have larger benefits that standard beef lacks.

Salmon is not 'red meat'. Totally different category of meat.

[OT2000]

Salmon is not 'red meat'

I am referring to omega 3 comparison man

[AdamWW]

I am referring to omega 3 comparison man

Not sure where you're getting the info on n-3, but from what I see neither moose nor elk have anywhere even close to the amount found in salmon....

Both elk and moose are too lean to even have a TOTAL fat per serving that would compare to just the n-3 in salmon.

[OT2000]

Not sure where you're getting the info on n-3, but from what I see neither moose nor elk have anywhere even close to the amount found in salmon....

Both elk and moose are too lean to even have a TOTAL fat per serving that would compare to just the n-3 in salmon.

https://nutritiondata.self.com/foods...0000000-1.html

Moose is top 10, looks like elk is lower unless you’re eating the organs.

[AdamWW]

https://nutritiondata.self.com/foods...0000000-1.html

Moose is top 10, looks like elk is lower unless you’re eating the organs.

I’m seeing salmon as having 4x as much as moose....

But I’m also not seeing that n-3 amount confirmed anywhere else online... so I’m not sure how reliable that number even is.

[OT2000]

I’m seeing salmon as having 4x as much as moose....

But I’m also not seeing that n-3 amount confirmed anywhere else online... so I’m not sure how reliable that number even is.

4x? The highest salmon is Coho and it’s only double.

[AdamWW]

4x? The highest salmon is Coho and it’s only double.

I literally just checked and the first one I clicked was over 800mg per ounce compared to 225 per ounce for moose

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts...-foods/10006/2


Regardless... I’d be curious to see if the amount in moose was accurate cuz it’s not a number I’m seeing anywhere else online.

I compared on cronometer and it’s not even close

[Mrpb]

I don’t doubt there are other ways to get more PUFA and cheaper at that (sardines for example, one of the best foods imo). But for red meat, it’s going to come down to choice. The limitations placed on it are accurate but as a whole I find we need to look at other variables like source of red meat (not just cow), diet of the animal etc. The gamier meats as you noted have higher omega 3(look at moose and elk, as high as many salmon varieties). Better omega 3 to 6 ratio (which imo is more optimal than most think).

Bison actually has 15 times more omega 6 than 3. If the ratio mattered you shouldn't eat it.

But the idea that the ratio matters isn't congruent with the latest data. More and more data has actually shown that higher intakes of omega 6 lower CVD risk. Also, think about this: if the ratio mattered why is there so much data showing that nuts are healthy? They contain way more omega 6 than 3.

Here's what Alan Aragon wrote:

There’s no objective evidence demonstrating the optimality of a 1:1 ratio of dietary omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. It’s all speculation without a solid research basis. For example, the ratio of omega-6 to omega 3 in coconut oil (a Paleo fetishist favorite) is almost 4000 to 1, yet the weight of the evidence does not indict coconut oil as an agent of adverse effects. Most commercially available land animals’ fatty acid composition has omega-6 content that’s many times greater than its omega-3 content. So, if we were to strive for a 1:1 ratio in the diet, we’d have to minimize the consumption of beef, chicken, pork, etc. It’s just silly. In line with this, the higher proportion of omega-6 fats in whole foods of plant origin such as nuts is not a concern. The evidence of omega-3 consumption’s beneficial effect on health indexes is abundant, so I would recommend keeping fatty marine foods in rotation in the weekly menu in order to reap these benefits. For those really worried about it, omega-3 supplementation is always an option.

http://karenpendergrass.com/intervie...ic-alan-aragon

If moose and elk help people to reach their omega 3 and 6 targets, great. But it's still red meat and frequent consumption of red meat is still associated with increased risk for colorectal cancer.

[OT2000]

I have tried to follow a closer diet with fatty acids focusing less on the 6 and saturated fats mainly those that are heavily processed.

I just read the study conducted by the AHA and I can see how saying omega 6 is unhealthy versus really what is needed (more omega 3) can easily be misconstrued. Substitution of saturated with omega 6 especially with what they’re heavy in like seeds and nuts helps with health. I can’t say that is surprising as diets higher in plant based whole foods have better histories of longevity.

I can see I am wrong here.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...y-omega-6-fats



I still do not see where any association of cancer and heart diseases come from eating meats like elk, bison, deer etc. The red meats are still lumped together even when we know the studies are around beef which we poorly farm.

For example, the ADA and AHA don’t lump game meat with their recommendations. For example:

https://www.diabetes.org/nutrition/h...e-easy/protein

Game meat is in its own category, no specific types (lean, less than this etc). Even the AHA as gone as far as saying Elk is the Heart Smart red meat.

[OT2000]

Created another thread since OP probably doesn’t need us in his.

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...post1615628541

[Mrpb]

It seems the other thread has been deleted.

I posted this 2020 review that suggests heme iron is the reason red meat increases colorectal cancer risk.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...04419X19301817

It's true that some scientists disagree but this goes for almost every topic, there's always some scientists that disagree. My suggestion would be to read the references in the above review and many other publications on the topic.

Future science will hopefully bring more clarity. And even if it's not heme iron that's causing it, I haven't seen any compelling data that suggests bison/moose etc. are exceptions to the red meat/colorectal cancer link.

It's true that high fiber, high vegetable and fruit take can significantly reduce (colorectal) cancer risk, so for anyone frequently eating red meat it makes sense to pair it with high vegetable and fruit intake. Heck, even if you don't any meat high vegetable, fruit and fiber intake is the way to go.

[speedychef]

I understand that it is still about total net calories, but white rice does seem to me like a choice which would be easier than most to consume too much of unintentionally, especially if it's paired with something oily or fat-laden already (which would be the principle point of difference with the cake, anyway).

Honestly I fall in this camp and like rice as a volumizer or base for whatever else I'm eating because it's cheap, filling, and quite convenient, but shy away because it seems like it's not the best choice for whatever carbs I am going to have, against something like oatmeal or wheat bran. So within the macro count you're aiming for, you're saying the GMI or whatever other macronutritional factors don't matter at all?

I like brown rice cooked in chicken stock. You grt a little extra fiber that way.

[mikey09120]

Thanks - I read somewhere that red meat is bad and can give you cancer if you eat it everyday, is this true?

Red meat is not great for your health but also not completely detrimental.\

There are plenty of plant-based protein options as well.