8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
6

Vegan "nutritionist" sister is driving me nuts. Help!

by (30)
Updated 35 minutes ago
Created February 05, 2013 at 7:02 PM

My borderline vegan sister is about to head to grad school for nutrition and I am a newbie cavegirl. We always get into arguments about animal protein and grains.

Her most recent campaign: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/animal-protein/

I know to combat this line: "The presence of industrial carcinogens, xenoestrogens, arsenic,steroids and external hormones in animal fat and protein may be partially to blame." with the paleo matra of grass-fed beef, farm raised chicken, etc. but what about something like this: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/meat-fumes-dietary-secondhand-smoke/ It's a video about how the fumes of cooked meat cause growth issues and cancer.

Any arguments I can throw her way?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
301 · February 18, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Fellow Cuban here. Good luck convincing your sister that rice and beans (and yucca, platanitos, maiz, and boniato) are bad for her. The way we were raised these foods were "super healthy". Really sad. Doesn't surprise me how so many Cubans here in Miami are morbidly obese and in horrible shape, they really believe the starchy foods they are used to eating are healthy. I tried convincing my family to switch, big fail, and that was after they saw me lose 30 pounds on it....

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
301 · February 18, 2014 at 2:03 PM

HCAs do cause cancer, as do PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) created during the cooking process. However, this can be easily avoided: don't char your meat and don't cook it over a flame. Instead of BBQing use a different cooking method, like steaming, microwaving, poaching, pressure cooking, soups, sous-vide, etc. There's a million ways to cook meat without burning it. It's just the typical vegan scare tactic. Funny how they never say anything about acrylamides in their bread and potatoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Human_cancer_risk_of_acrylamide_exposure_from_food

Bac49edb31092c3d6db9d461485cb310
0 · February 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Zeranol has not been banned for use in beef or chicken in the US. It's only allowed in beef in Canada.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41312 · September 07, 2013 at 1:28 AM

They put up a good front that can dupe some people I'm sure!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · February 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM

did you convince her to layoff the bad science?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 07, 2013 at 7:21 PM

A lot of things can influence HCA detoxification http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 so it's like there's a zone where a small amount of HCAs may not have an effect at all, and it's modified by other factors. Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 07, 2013 at 7:07 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 -- Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 07, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I think dose-dependent means that there isn't really a threshold and it's toxic at any level but it's linear. I just think that the data suggests that it's not dose-dependent, and many things increase the rate of detoxification and reduce mutagenicity.

7eecdd43c11e2af1a9e4ca0f63d44749
109 · February 06, 2013 at 5:03 PM

haha yeah that makes sense. I'm the kind of person who seeks harmony in groups while others enjoy a bit of conflict. NSync v Backstreet Boys though? ;)

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Yeah, now that I think about that term does not meat what I intended it to mean. I was trying to refer to the linear no threshold model of carcinogens.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 06, 2013 at 4:02 PM

We are Cuban. Very loud stubborn personalities. When we were little it was NSYNC vs. Backstreet Boys. Now it's paleo vs. vegan. This is fun for us.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · February 06, 2013 at 1:18 PM

@Stabby, I have never understood that argument (I know it is not your argument it is Greger's). Large amounts of water are toxic, does that mean we should we should never consume water ever?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41312 · February 06, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I'm likely not up on my toxicology/pharmacology lingo, but dose dependent sounds like there's a minimum threshold for toxicity/carcinogenicity. Or maybe it just means that dose versus risk/probability is linear/proportional?

Ca2c940a1947e6200883908592956680
8574 · February 06, 2013 at 10:38 AM

http://paindatabase.com/ask-kamal-stabby-vegan-diet

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Chlorophyll chelates iron too, as do a few other compounds (certain polyphenols I believe). But yeah, I think meat can be, in some dietary contexts, unhealthy. There, I said it. But it doesn't have to be, as you've already saliently pointed out. And advocating it's avoidance entirely, given its important nutrients and potential benefits, seems silly.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:16 AM

That was a joke, but yes I absolutely agree.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:15 AM

Tell them they should do a meta-analysis of meta-analysis.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 7:08 AM

meta-analysis of cooking techniques. I suspect that once the really harsh ones are controlled for the few correlations between meat and certain cancers will vanish. Also there is heme iron in red meat which needs to be chelated by calcium through the GI tract. There are actually a number of possible contextual issues that can be expected to further weaken the argument that meat contributes to cancer risk, and yet so many people seem indifferent to rigor and just want to say that all meat is bad and you should be a vegan.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Stabby, why'd ya delete your comments? They were good, as always.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 7:05 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are also bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I just e-mailed some Harvard guys asking if they're going to do a meta-analysi

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:53 AM

or maybe he's serious about truth but not the scientific method.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:53 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are bad but less bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I don't find Greger to be very credible, he's not serious about truth

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:47 AM

that because there is a risk associated with high heat cooking methods then there is no suitable medium between too much and too little. He is actually acutely aware of the fact that moderate baking, boiling, and basically anything with water don't tend to generate significant amounts of HCAs in humans, yet he thinks that the only rational conclusion is the diet that he would be eating anyway even if meat was the healthiest thing in the world (and it might be pretty healthy what with all of its unique nutrients! It's kind of simple-minded to anchor like that).

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:44 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. And in truth most meta-analyses for meat consumption and cancer risk are either extremely weak or non-supportive, the scientists who do them aren't very confident that the data supports that conclusion. The exception being colorectal cancer, which I think is mostly an issue of extreme overcooking like grilling and cooking to well-done, as well as heme iron in the absence of the calcium to chelate it in its passage through the GI tract. But Greger likes to say...

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c
1981 · February 05, 2013 at 10:52 PM

All right, anonymous downvote!

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:47 PM

This is perfect! Thanks for the link.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:46 PM

I have my MMA class tonight :)

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:46 PM

I usually assume what she sends me is backed by more legitimate sources because she is studying nutrition FOR HER JOB. Apparently not... Thanks for the answer.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Thanks! Can't wait to draft a better researched email!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · February 05, 2013 at 9:00 PM

funded by the Rasch Foundation (a vegetarian proponent) and run by Dr. Greger who is a vegetarian of note.... Amazing they were the ones who figured out meat is bad and vegetarianism is good... What are the odds?

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce
3422 · February 05, 2013 at 8:12 PM

If it's a point of contention just don't talk about. Actively. When it comes up just say that you're not interested in discussing it. Period.

Total Views
2.2K

Recent Activity
A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

Last Activity
35D AGO

Followers
3

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

13 Answers

best answer

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
10
26017 · February 05, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Amazing. The problem is that most of xenoestrogens that humans consume is from crops such as corn, sugarcane, soy, dwarf wheat and winter wheat. As well as insecticides used on numerous vegetables, fruits, cereal grains. And finally the plastic containers that foods are sold in. The primary animal fat xenoestrogen, Zeranol, has been banned from use in the US.....

So you tell me, which diet is going to be higher in xenoestrogens?

As for the studies:

The mutegen that they are identifying, Heterocyclic amines form when amino acids and creatine react at very high cooking temperatures.

So why should I be surprised that meat, which inherently has creatine, produces higher amounts of HCAs? When Soy and Tofu have virtually no creatine. Also the study does not specify the type of seed oil used to fry the foods -- rancid oil is one of the prime culprits of HCAs.

For the second study? They are talking about a .2 lbs difference and are calling it significant. It may be scientifically significant, but that does not make it significant in real life. (see subway 11" foot long debacle). But let's see what the authors thought:

"estimated effects were of borderline significance level"

"the reduced birth weight could not have been mediated by a shortened gestation period"

"the intake of barbecued meat did not affect the duration of pregnancy"

Also there is nothing to suggest that a lower birth weight (which btw, huge 95% CI) has anything to do with the health of the fetus.

My take? Bad science.

======================================================================= Edit:

The other thing that really bothers me about this "study" is that there is an assumption that any ingestion of HCA causes cancer. There have been studies that have definitively linked massive amounts of HCA to cancer. We should not assume that there is a linear relationship and that if TOO MUCH HCA is bad, than any amount of HCA is bad and/or that there is some cumulative effect.

If that logic is appropriate, than we really shouldn't drink any water. It has been shown that too much water leads to hyponatremia which can lead to death. So if TOO MUCH water is bad, than all water is bad. Or there is some cumulative effect so if you drink water every day at some point you will go over a threshold.

Now we all know that this is BS. We have processes to excrete water. So there is certainly no cumulative effect. We also know that we need water for survival. Some water = necessary for life; Too much water = death. There is a happy medium, and our bodies are particularly well designed to excrete toxins before they get to the dangerous threshold.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
301 · February 18, 2014 at 2:03 PM

HCAs do cause cancer, as do PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) created during the cooking process. However, this can be easily avoided: don't char your meat and don't cook it over a flame. Instead of BBQing use a different cooking method, like steaming, microwaving, poaching, pressure cooking, soups, sous-vide, etc. There's a million ways to cook meat without burning it. It's just the typical vegan scare tactic. Funny how they never say anything about acrylamides in their bread and potatoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Human_cancer_risk_of_acrylamide_exposure_from_food

Bac49edb31092c3d6db9d461485cb310
0 · February 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Zeranol has not been banned for use in beef or chicken in the US. It's only allowed in beef in Canada.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Thanks! Can't wait to draft a better researched email!

Cf416725f639ffd1bb90764792ce7b8a
7
2799 · February 05, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Secretly take martial arts lessons then mercilessly physically dominate your sister at every opportunity all the while claiming it's solely the result of your superior diet.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:46 PM

I have my MMA class tonight :)

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5
7
10994 · February 05, 2013 at 7:11 PM

That video said that living near a Chinese restaurant will be detrimental to your health because they broil fish there. Seriously, that's batshit-cantthinkstraight-vegan-craziness argument... I can't even count the number of third variables that they couldn't/didn't control for. Tell your vegan sister to give you clinical research instead of this garbage.

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:46 PM

I usually assume what she sends me is backed by more legitimate sources because she is studying nutrition FOR HER JOB. Apparently not... Thanks for the answer.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
6
41312 · February 05, 2013 at 8:00 PM

"Similarly, the best source of vitamin B12 is from supplements rather from animal sources."

Really? The best source of B12 is an artificial pill, not a whole food? How did we survive as a species up to now? Can you really take a site that says this seriously? I've seen 'articles' there before, they're all pretty miserable.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41312 · September 07, 2013 at 1:28 AM

They put up a good front that can dupe some people I'm sure!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · February 05, 2013 at 9:00 PM

funded by the Rasch Foundation (a vegetarian proponent) and run by Dr. Greger who is a vegetarian of note.... Amazing they were the ones who figured out meat is bad and vegetarianism is good... What are the odds?

6dc767a3b94cb0133601caf6c39ea218
4
330 · February 05, 2013 at 8:03 PM

honestly, anyone NOT paleo will disagree with you about being Paleo. i don't even talk about it anymore and if people ask me about it, i just give a short and simple answer. my favorite was when an overweight friend of mine asked how i looked so great (been doing Paleo and CrossFit for a year now), and when i told her, she was all negative about Paleo. she said, "well, i eat a multi-grain bagel with cream cheese every morning and i'm just fine." really? well, you are a couch potato and fat.... don't ask me how i look so great if you are then going to bring me down. ignorant!!

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce
3422 · February 05, 2013 at 8:12 PM

If it's a point of contention just don't talk about. Actively. When it comes up just say that you're not interested in discussing it. Period.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4
3
20411 · February 05, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I suggest you spend some time reading Denise Minger's blog:
http://rawfoodsos.com/

She's a smart, ex vegan, who crunches the numbers and looks at a lot of studies (tears them apart, more like).

That and maybe Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth is worth a read.

(Yes, I know Lierre plays loose with facts in that book and she seems to have gone batshit crazy lately, but I still like the book for the passion, the lyrical prose and thoughtful, compelling arguments. And anybody who takes a Tobasco cream pie to the face from angry vegans is a hero in my book.)

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 05, 2013 at 10:47 PM

This is perfect! Thanks for the link.

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c
3
1981 · February 05, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Just bide your time. Often, people's beliefs about food have nothing to do with facts. When she baits you, look at her and say "yeah, maybe," and then carry on with your bad self.

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c
1981 · February 05, 2013 at 10:52 PM

All right, anonymous downvote!

7eecdd43c11e2af1a9e4ca0f63d44749
2
109 · February 06, 2013 at 8:45 AM

I would suggest it might be worth considering why you feel the need to respond to your sister's arguments and 'win' the argument. Is it just part of sibling rivalry, do you want o convert your sister to paleo? Is it important for you that people around you think the same way? There could be all sorts of reasons, but one thing I've learned of years living in a family where I am very different and take an active interest in all sorts of things whereas my family don't, that I'm never going to get them to think the way I do, or for that matter just even try to understand something from my point of view.

What kind of relationship will you have with you sister if you end up continually arguing about nurtition? Is it worth it? Try influencing others by setting an example in terms of how you live your own life rather than getting into technical arguments. Often no matter what facts you have, you won't 'win' anyway.

7eecdd43c11e2af1a9e4ca0f63d44749
109 · February 06, 2013 at 5:03 PM

haha yeah that makes sense. I'm the kind of person who seeks harmony in groups while others enjoy a bit of conflict. NSync v Backstreet Boys though? ;)

8c212b8837247e8bc1c4b6ff156cda12
30 · February 06, 2013 at 4:02 PM

We are Cuban. Very loud stubborn personalities. When we were little it was NSYNC vs. Backstreet Boys. Now it's paleo vs. vegan. This is fun for us.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
2
12667 · February 05, 2013 at 10:58 PM

My issue with the way studies like that first one are used is that it relies on the idea that such compounds (HCA's in this case) are dose dependent carcinogens, i.e., any dose above zero increases cancer.

In reality, this idea is flimsy and many carcinogens likely have a threshold level. Basically, there are carcinogens everywhere, but thankfully for us, in doses well below what are problematic.

Should we really worry about cooking beef because some study found the produced fumes had 1/3 of a nanogram of carcinogens per gram of meat, whereas tempeh fumes had 1/6 a nanogram of these carcinogens?

Personally, I'm not convinced the extra 0.00000000017 grams of HCA's in the air, most of which I'm probably not even inhaling, are worth worrying about.

None of this is to say barbecuing and frying the crap out of your meat isn't a bad idea, I think it is. But this is not a required way of eating meat. You can easily cook meat in gentler ways and many such arguments against it become much weaker.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 07, 2013 at 7:21 PM

A lot of things can influence HCA detoxification http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 so it's like there's a zone where a small amount of HCAs may not have an effect at all, and it's modified by other factors. Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 07, 2013 at 7:07 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713174 -- Also I agree with chlorophyll, since I really only eat red meat once per day I always eat it with a big mound of greens. I'm glad that Greger is to tenacious in his quest to prove that meat is unequivocally bad for you because he unearths some issues that I can use to increase my net health benefit from eating meat :D

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 07, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I think dose-dependent means that there isn't really a threshold and it's toxic at any level but it's linear. I just think that the data suggests that it's not dose-dependent, and many things increase the rate of detoxification and reduce mutagenicity.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Yeah, now that I think about that term does not meat what I intended it to mean. I was trying to refer to the linear no threshold model of carcinogens.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · February 06, 2013 at 1:18 PM

@Stabby, I have never understood that argument (I know it is not your argument it is Greger's). Large amounts of water are toxic, does that mean we should we should never consume water ever?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41312 · February 06, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I'm likely not up on my toxicology/pharmacology lingo, but dose dependent sounds like there's a minimum threshold for toxicity/carcinogenicity. Or maybe it just means that dose versus risk/probability is linear/proportional?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Chlorophyll chelates iron too, as do a few other compounds (certain polyphenols I believe). But yeah, I think meat can be, in some dietary contexts, unhealthy. There, I said it. But it doesn't have to be, as you've already saliently pointed out. And advocating it's avoidance entirely, given its important nutrients and potential benefits, seems silly.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:16 AM

That was a joke, but yes I absolutely agree.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:15 AM

Tell them they should do a meta-analysis of meta-analysis.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 7:08 AM

meta-analysis of cooking techniques. I suspect that once the really harsh ones are controlled for the few correlations between meat and certain cancers will vanish. Also there is heme iron in red meat which needs to be chelated by calcium through the GI tract. There are actually a number of possible contextual issues that can be expected to further weaken the argument that meat contributes to cancer risk, and yet so many people seem indifferent to rigor and just want to say that all meat is bad and you should be a vegan.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12667 · February 06, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Stabby, why'd ya delete your comments? They were good, as always.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 7:05 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are also bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I just e-mailed some Harvard guys asking if they're going to do a meta-analysi

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:53 AM

or maybe he's serious about truth but not the scientific method.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:53 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. There are many studies that suggest that the real risk is grilling and cooking meat until it's overdone, and there has never been a meta-analysis that takes that into account. Greger likes to insinuate that if large amounts of HCAs are bad then small amounts are bad but less bad and that means that you should never eat any meat ever. Kind of invalid, and it's anchoring, meat has many unique benefits. I don't find Greger to be very credible, he's not serious about truth

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:47 AM

that because there is a risk associated with high heat cooking methods then there is no suitable medium between too much and too little. He is actually acutely aware of the fact that moderate baking, boiling, and basically anything with water don't tend to generate significant amounts of HCAs in humans, yet he thinks that the only rational conclusion is the diet that he would be eating anyway even if meat was the healthiest thing in the world (and it might be pretty healthy what with all of its unique nutrients! It's kind of simple-minded to anchor like that).

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · February 06, 2013 at 6:44 AM

Yes it's when the carcinogen load overtakes the ability of the body to metabolize them safely that you start to see problems. And in truth most meta-analyses for meat consumption and cancer risk are either extremely weak or non-supportive, the scientists who do them aren't very confident that the data supports that conclusion. The exception being colorectal cancer, which I think is mostly an issue of extreme overcooking like grilling and cooking to well-done, as well as heme iron in the absence of the calcium to chelate it in its passage through the GI tract. But Greger likes to say...

5dd50f78f47b8848d93724d6eb38d4c1
1
887 · February 06, 2013 at 7:09 AM

You should be grateful you have an sibling you can argue about nutrition with. It could help you both learn more and see different view points. No one in my family gives a damn about nutrition.

687bcdeaf37909fd0a6c3dbcc244f1de
0
0 · February 18, 2014 at 1:29 PM

I compete unspokenly with my sister. She was a natural bodybuilder and gymnast, a doctor, and specializes in nutrition. I was introverted and an emotional carb wreck.

Now I have bounced informational texts....but to avoid conflict, I do my thing, do it well, and shine with my outstanding transformation.

Btw...not all is as seems. Someone who I thought walked her talk has secret candy stashed, processed food, and slams her ex for having kids on celiac diet. She pushed alcohol on me and gave me crap for my excess herbal tea consumption. No need to fear that poor of competition! I'm more fit than her with a healthier diet now, unbelievable!

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc
0
675 · February 17, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Point her to the personal blog of Peter Attia, MD

http://eatingacademy.com/start-here

http://eatingacademy.com/dr-peter-attia

http://eatingacademy.com/my-personal-nutrition-journey

http://eatingacademy.com/category/cholesterol-2

Perhaps reading the work of a mechanical engineer trained as an MD at Stanford & Johns Hopkins who has turned his focus towards nutrition will have some impact on her thinking. Let Dr. A's work do the heavy lifting for you with respect to how most "nutritional research" is lacking good science. :(

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account