/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>19309340
>>19309358
They are high in iron and calcium though, and crucially for iron, our body is able to regulate the amount it absorbs. You can absorb more iron from red meat in the form of heme because there's no mechanism to stop it when you've had enough, which is one of the reasons red meat and iron in the form of heme are associated with increased risk of colon cancer.

>>16339578
>Theres correlation studies that tell you red meat, whatever is bad for your health but can't explain the mechanism for it
How hard did you look? One mechanism was already posted earlier in the thread

>>12933773
The most well understood is the form of iron in red meat (pic)

Another contributor is a molecule called neu5gc

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299224/

>>6512326

it's a generally accepted fact that red meat is something you should avoid eating as much as possible. that's hard for some people to accept, especially the kind of people that the paleo diet is marketed to, but that's science.

The world cancer research fund says there is "convincing evidence" that red meat in addition to processed red meats increase the risk of colon cancer, and they, as most health instutes do, recommend severely limiting red meat intake

Most red meat foods are also high in saturated fat, which isn't good for your heart

>>6244284

That's not why meat is associated with health issues, but no anyway. I think I know what you're getting at though, that an "association" doesn't mean as much as hard data, but after being discovered, these associations are then considered for plausability and subjected to experiments to determine causality and then to understand the mechanisms of why. When people say something is "associated" with something, what they generally mean is that it's known to cause or contribute to some problem, not that it's just been linked in a speculative, confounded way.

Pic related, red meat for example is associated with colon cancer, and investigation has identified several mechanisms that can explain it. Whole grains on the other hand are associated with protection against colon cancer, with fiber, phytates, and fiber-bound antioxidants believed to be the reason why after studies have found them to be cancer-preventive. Things like this help to explain why vegetarians, who may eat these healthy plant foods, are usually shown to be healthier than non-vegetarians, who eat foods like red meat. There's clear plausability that jives with established knowledge and inquiry

>>6154410

those foods existed before the neolithic revolution. humans ate those foods.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2009/12/17/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/

>but we weren't built for such high carbohydrate diets. We're made for a mostly fat and meat based diet

the problem is when you make a theory, it's supposed to be based on science instead of your personal thoughts and feelings. according to organizations that exist to research diet and health and make policies about them for the public, your conclusions are about as backwards as they get. take the world health organization for example

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

>limit energy intake from total fats and shift fat consumption away from saturated fats
>increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, and legumes, whole grains and nuts

or the world cancer research fund

http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/plant-foods

>Eat mostly foods of plant origin.
>Eat relatively unprocessed cereals (grains) and/or pulses (legumes) with every meal

this is the result of using scientific inquiry to determine what foods are ideal for humans.

ironic too that the food you associate with carbs like donuts and mcdonalds are also very high in fat. maybe if you ate some oatmeal you'd get better blood flow to your brain and be able to think more clearly

Why would eating lamb be for health reasons?